• ^< MT^ A'*

, 1> tl» {» *■ l« ^ :^ .

- - ^. t> ^ * ^* . '^

>i 4^' l» 0 V ^ ■*' ^ ^' w, -

t^:_*

1

O. ji

,» 1*' f»

i» i»

Ij: ■■ 1 t • < M '; I ■ .,-.1 .'

; It

f ■:';■

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2009 with funding from

Lyrasis IVIembers and Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/conservationprob09mary

I

« ■

i

4^7

STATE OF Up-YLAITD l^TATE PLMinNG COmiSSION

CONSERVAT I ON PROBLEMS in MAHYLAM)

Second Edition 1956

i

I

STATE OF MARYLAND STATE PLAI'3IIII;G COMMISSION

Lavinia M. Eticile, Vice-Cuuirraan W. L. Gdlvin Robert K. Riley 11. D. V/iiliar, Jr. Abel VVoLman, Chairman

Tliomas F. Hubbard, Associate Consultant

CONSERVATION PROBLEI'yJS IN lAARYLAiro

By

THE SUB-COI.MITTEE 01.^ CONSERVATION

lUrs. Alfonso Boley V;. S. Hamill A. C. Jones F. V/. Lawson William C. Todd

C. A. Lockerman

V/illiam Northam

G. n. Pouder

Isaac H. Tawes

R. V. Truxtt, Cuair-uiai.

February, 1936.

PREFACE TO THE SECOIID EDITION

This second edition of "Conservation Proulems in Maryland" represents essentially a reprint of the original re- port, which was first published in the early part of 1935. Witu certain exceptions, the present revisions consist entirely of correcting the few minor errors that appeared in the first edition. In an effort to increase the general usefulness of the report, a table of contents and a topical index have also been added.

Abel V/olman, Cl*airnian Stcxte Planning Commission

BaltiiTiurc, Mq. February, 1936.

-1-

I

Preface to the First Edition

The State Planning Coirmission of M.^.i-yland presents herewith its second report on important problems of tho State of Mary- land, in accord,ancc v.'ith the pcvers and duties dclGgn.tcd to it under an Act of the Special Session of the Legislative Assembly of Maryland of November, 1933.

The present docunont deals v;ith on^; of the most im- portant economic difficulties of the State. The Commission has had tho highly cooperative effort of a suh-comnittec appointed by it on conservation problems. The report deals primarily T/ith the problems of shellfish development and control.

"The daily papers often publish letters from oysteincn nho think that they cm point out the true remedy, and tho proposed reme- dies are almost as numerous as the authors, and nearly all the letters give statements which, while thoy are perfectly true, are based upon such narrow experience that they arc of little or no value as contri- butions to a broad, comprehensive view of the problem.

"The tongmcn know that most of the oysters have been taken away by the dredgers, and they therefore advocate tho prohibition or restriction of dredging. Ignorant of tho fact that in localities where no dredging has been allowed, the nabaral beds have been exhausted by tongmen just as soon as a demand for the oysters sprung up, thoy believe that the prohibition of dredging is all that is needed to restore the beds. The dredgers, on tho other hand, .attribute the injury to the law which allows the tongmen to trke oysters for private use in the

i

• 111-

sumncr, forgetting thnt the beds of Connecticut p.rc rapidly increasing in value under a la'v vrhich allo'.vs not only tonging, "but dredging as vrell all through the year. The snail dredgers and scrapers hold that the larger vessels arc destroying the oysters hy the use of heavy drodges, although the Connecticut famcrs find it to their interest to use on their O'.vn private beds far heavier dredges, which they drag over the beds by stean.

"Many of the oyster-packers, vrho carry on their business only in the v/intor, believe that all the dnxvage is due to the oysternen who fish in March, April and Hay, and men '.vho have money invested in the oyster business in Marylpjid believe thr.t the exportation of oysters in the shell, rjid especially oysters for planting in Northern waters, is the cause of the mischief.

"All agree in throwing the blanc on some one else, and all believe that some form of the business in vrhich they ,arc not interested is responsible for the present state of things and should be prohibited; but as the oyster navy is a convenient scapegoat, all pp,rtics unite in throwing the bleme upon the officers of the Fishery Force.

"I know of many destroyed oyster fisheries and I know of a few that have been rebuilt, and I find one cause connon to all fail- ures and as connon to all successes. In the first instance, the fishery has been comnion property, its preservation everybody's business - that is, nobody's - and consequentlj'" it has not been preserved. In the second instance, the fishery has been conducted and ovmed by persons singly and together as private property; it has been this, that, or the

•IV-

othcr man's iDusiness to see to its preservation; that is, its preserva- tion has "beun everybody's "business instead of nobody's and consequently it has been preserved."

The above quotations are from a volume on "The Oyster" issued by Dr. William K. Brooks of the Johns Hopkins University in 1890 i In the forty-five years intervening since that time additional evidence of overwhelming character has been accumulated to confirm the validity and T/isdom of his comments. The question may properly be raised now as to. whether we shall go on another half a century without correcting the disabilities v/hich Dr. Brooks and our present sub-committee so aptly set forth.

The State Planning Commission takes great pleasure in acknowledging here the hi^ degree of cooperation v/hich the sub-committee has afforded to it during a period of over twelve months. Its labors should bear fruit.

Baltimore, Marj^land . February, 1935.

/'^'( / Umtt^^

ABEL WOLJ-iilM, Chairman State Planning Commission.

1

I

TABLE OF COlTarTS

Chapter Page No.

Preface to the Second Edition i

Preface to the Firat Edition ii - iv

General Summary , i - 11

Recommendat ions 12 - 16

I Resurvey of Oyster Bars 17 - 20

II Development of Seed Areas 21 - 23

III Disposition of Seed Oysters 24 - 26

IV Shell Plant ing 27 - 29

V Special Conservation Finances 30

VI Inadequacy of Present Lease Laws in Tributary Waters 31-33

VII Added iirea for Leasing 34 - 38

VIII Additional Powers for Conservation Authorities 39-40

IX Leasing of Seaside Areas in Worcester County 41 - 42

X Crab Resources 43 - 46

XI Cooperation with Virginia 47

XII Further Studies 48

Statistical Appendix 49 - 60

Itemized Table of Contents 61 - 62

-o-

-1-

GEIERAL Smi.LARY

TLe importance of the oyster in the fishing industry •f the United States is shown by the fact that the value of the annual catch of oysters exceeds that of finy other fish except salmon. Prac- tically the entire production is obtained from the protected waters of the Atlantic and Gulf States, affording employment to thousands of wor- kers and requiring the use of equipment valued at millions of dollars. The successful and profitable operation of such an importajit industry should command widespread interest.

Contrary to the general understanding, the oyster indust- ry of the Atlantic and Gulf States during the past 25 years has been on a serious decline, the production from the 1910-1912 period to 1932 having decreased by 12,558,292 bushels, or 50.8 per cent. The major factors operating to bring about such a drastic curtailment of prod- uction are not of immediate origin, but have resulted from a contin- uance of the unsound conditions and short-sighted policies that have characterized and controlled the industry's operations over a long series of years. While the depression has not been v/ithout its ad- verse effects on the prosperity of the oyster business, it has served more properly to accelerate and intensify the trends already in ex- istence.

The changing conditions in the oyster industry have also brought about a radical realignment in the relative importance of the several producing areas. Through an intelligent recognition of the fundairiental factors governing the successful operation of the oyster fisheries, some States, through proper legislation, have endeavored to reestablish the industry on a practical and more stabilized basis, while in certain other states, such as Maryland, the industry's

-2- development has been limited and controlled ty short- sigi.ted and iinv/ise legislative policies.

The trends that have characterized the production of oysters in Maryland during recent decades render iir.portr^nt r. careful anal- ysis of the factors that control and influence operations in this State; of the position thiat Maryland now occupies in the oyster industry of the country as a whole, and of the ability of Maryland to maintain a pro- duction of satisfactory proportions in the future. The adequacy of the measures that are now depended upon to conserve and improve the oyster resources of the State constitutes an index to Maryland's future position as an oyster-producing area. It is also of fundamental importance that a correct appraisal he given to the efficacy of these measures and to the opportunities available for the industry's further expansion and devel- opment .

A somewhat detailed summary is outlined belov/ of certain of the more fundamental developments in the oyster industry, v/hich should be taken into consideration in forraailating any program designed to restore the industry in Maryland to its former position and importance. In order to facilitate the presentation of this introductory .naterial, essential supporting data are appended in tabular form to the main body of the Com- mittee's report.

Decline in the country's oyster consum-ption - According to the data presented in table 1, the aggregate oyster production in the Atlantic and Gulf States has shown a steady decline over a long period of years. The production of this group of States represents essentially the volume of oyster consumption in the United States, since practically no oysters are imported and the production along the Pacific Coast is com- paratively small.

The apparent per capita consumption of oyeters in the United States by decades, from 1880 to 1950, is shown in table 2. Wliile

i

-3-

the?e data are naturally verj- general in character, they neverthcle--;? indicate that the jjer capita cons^jraption of oysters has shown a marked decrease during the period in question.. It is significant to note tliat while the population of the United States, betv/een 188D and 133C, in- creased by 144.8 ptr cent, the per capita oyster consumption declined by 77.3 per cent during the same period.

This large contraction in the consumption of oysters indicates that something is vitally wrong with the industry's market- ing mechanism, and further coraplicF'tes the problem of restoring pro- duction to former levels. In any effort to increase the present supply cf oysters, there should be a corresponding effort to increase the con- sumption and market distribution of this product.

Relative position of Maryland's oyster industry - It is apparent from the material presented in table 1, that the production of market-oysters in the Atlantic and Gulf States has decreased mater- ially since 1890, although the decline in Maryland has been much more rapid. From 183"5, the year of Ma.ryland's peak production, to 1932, the decline in State's pjinual oyster catch, expressed in bushels, amounted to 81.6 per cent, while tha.t for the group of States named decreased but 55.9 per cent between the periods of maxim\:im and minimum production.

Maryland in 188C v/as the most important oyster-produc- ing State in the coTintry, and its catch in that year comprised 47,5 per cent of the aggregate production for all the Atlrintic and Gulf States. By 1930, hov/ever, Maryland's market oyster production represented only 15.4 per cent of the total for the group of States mentioned; in 1931, it amounted to 19.9 per cent, and in 1933 to 16. • per cent. These fig- ures indicate, therefore, that Maryland's oyster industry, in a period of approximately 4C years, has declined from a position of dominant rank to one of average iraportajice.

Changing importance of the sevaral oyster-producing States - The oyster production of the country l:as not only declined

I

f

I

frertly since 1880, but the relative iraportrince of the several produc- ing States hp.s been suhjoct to a somewhat radical realignment since that date.

From the information in tatle 3 it will be noted that the Chesapeake Bay Area in 1880 suppUed 73.1 per cent of the volume of oysters taken from the waters of the Atlantic and C-ulf States, and by 1930 it had declined to 34.8 per cento Maryland's production decreased from 47.5 per cent in 1S3C to 16. C per cent in 1932, while that for Vir- ginia declined from 30.6 per cent to 18.*'^ per cent for the same period.

During the time of rapidly diminishing oyster production in the Chesapeake Bay Area, certain States materially increased their pro- duction, while others, though showing a diminished supply, have managed to maintain their relative positions. From 188C to 1932 the New England States' percentage of the oyster production for tiie Atlantic and Gulf States increased from 2.4 per cent to 9.2 per cent; the South Atlaxitic States increased from 1.7 per cent to 10.5 per cent, while that for the Gulf States advanced from 2.2 per cent to 3'i.% per cent. The Middle At- lantic States practically maintained their relative importance, decreas- ing slightly from 15.7 per cent of the total in 1880 to 15.5 per cent in 1932. With the exception of Maryland, Virginia, Nev; Jersey, and Delaware, all the Atlantic and Gulf States advanced their relative positions in the oyster industry during the period in question, while actual production in- creases were shovm for all such States except Maryland, Virginia, Nev/ York, New Jersey, and Delaware.

It should be pointed out that v/hlle such important states as Virginia, Nev; Jersey, and New York showed a production decline since 1880, their present operations are being conducted on a more practical basis than are those in Maryl?ind. As will be explained later, this situ- ation is due primarily to the fact that these States permit private-plant- ing operations on a large scale, whereas the policy in Maryland has been to rely almost exclusively on the production from public grounds.

-5-

Trend in M:ryland's oyster production - According to the data shown in table 4 Mnryland's oyster production has been more or less dov/nv/ard since 1890, and in 1935 the volume of the coranercial cn,tch anioanted to only 1,778,506 bushels, the smallest for any of the individual years shown. From 1880, the year of peak production, to 1933, t?.e volume of the State's oyster catch, expressed in bushels, declined by 83.2 per cent. The value of the production has also showrn a corresponding downv/ard trend amounting, in 1933, to only $788,197, the least of any of the years shovm.

This great decline in production is probably even more serious than the Government fi{_:ures would seen to indicate. This a.ssumption is based largely on the fact that competent students, such as Dr. '.Y. K. Brooks, of the Johns Hopkins University, had placed the pefik annual pro- duction at approximately 15,000,000 bushels, v/hereas the largest crotch shown in table 4 for any individual year is 10,600,000 bushels.

Fundamental reasons for the decline in Mrryland's oyster industry - Over fishing, the wholesale exportation of seed oysters to other States, together with a failure to return shells to the oyster beds, have been primarily responsible for the large decrease in the oyster output of the State, which is taken almost entirely from public groTinds. Inasmuch as oyster shells form the best possible type of cultch for catching the young oyster spat, the reraova.l of millions of bushels of shells over a long period of years has greatly diminished the opportunity for young oy- sters to develop. The failure on the pa.rt of the State to inaugurate early a comprehensive program of public reha.bilitation, or to permit the development of private-planting operations on a large enough scale, accounts for the fact that the declining oyster production in Maryland was not checked until the lov/ levels of recent years ha,d been rea.ched.

Adverse effects of Maryland's declininti: oyster iproduction - The economic consequences of Maryland's dwindling oyster production are more fully ap^ireciated when it is pointed out that the purchasing pov/er of the

-6-

population dependent upon this industry has been seriously reduced. This situation has reacted unfavoratly on general business conditions throughout the State, creating in some sections emergency pi-oblems of unemployment and relief, which are apparently beyond local solution. In addition to these unfa""'orable conditions, the short-sighted policy ox taking oysters before they are fully grown has operated to reduce the quality of oysters produced in this State. Furthermore, the decline in the supply has so increased the cost of fishing operations that the small oysters, which formerly v-ent into canning, are nov/ marketed in the fresh state. This condition, among other factors, has practically destroyed tiaryland oyster-canning industry, virhich ten or twelve years ago produced a pack valued at over v750,C00 annually. The seriousness of Maryland's contrfxting oyrster prodtiction is more fully described under the following headings:

1) - Loss in emplo:'^!nent - The serious decline in I/iaryland's oyster production, as reflected in decreased opportvmities for employment, is strikingly shov.n in Table 5. According to the data shovm in Table 5, the number of tonging licenses issued by the State from 1916 to 1933 de- creased by 3,136, or 43.0 per cent; the number of scrrper licenses v;as fever by 6l7, or 84.5 per cent; tjid thu num.ber of uredging licenses wns less by 384, or 86.1 per cent. From these figures it is conservatively estimated that at least 5,000 fev;er people were directly employed in taking oysters in 1933 than in 1916. This estimate, hor.-ever, does not include numerous other persons v;ho have lost employment through the contraction of other branches of the industry, such as shucking, canning, et cetera.

2) Large-size oysters nc longer taken in ^uantitj.e.3 from Harv- Irnd. waters - The dv/indling supoly of iviaryland oysters has forced the fisher- men to work intensively the few remaining bars that are nov producing. This condition has reoulted in the practice of taking the oysters before they reach f'-ll maturity, and vhich, because of their size, must be sold as "standards".

3 ) Maryland nov; deT-e'"'dcnt on oth'-'r States for large-sii^e ovs- 1:^213 - In order to supply the demands of the tr^.de, iilaryland packers have

-7- been forced to import large-size oysters from other producing States such as Virginia, Nev; Jersey and New York. It should also be mentioned that the failure of Maryland to produce oysters of proper size has lost to other States most of the profitable raw-bar trade that it once possessed.

4) Decline in oyster r-anning - Maryland at one time v;as the center of the oyster-canning industry, but the decreased supply of recent years, accompanied by higher fishing costs, has forced this industry practi- cally to abandon operations, especially in f£.ce of competition vdth the cheap southern product. Table 6 shows that Maryland in 1921 produced a pack of canned oysters valued at ^778,435, or 35.7 per cent of the value of the coimtry's total output. Since that time the production has declined, and in 1931 the industry in Maryland had ceased to operate.

Efforts of the State to rehabilitate the oyster industry - Aside from the enactment and administration of laws regulating the size, sea- son of capture, type of equipment to be employed, et cetera, the State for many years did relatively little tov;ards stemming the rapid depletion of its public oyster bars. It vas not until 1927 that the Legislature made provi- sion for a shell- planting program of any effective magnitude. These activi- ties were to be financed through the passage of a 10 per cent shell tax on the packing houses, the use of the revenue from the gasoline tax on work boats, and by direct appropriations.

Since the inauguration of this nev/ policy in 1927 to 1934 a total of 6,110,942 bushels of shells had been distributed on the natural bars of the State, making an average annual planting of approximately 764,000 bushels per year. During this st:me period a total of 372,853 bushels of seed oysters were taken from the head of the Bay and planted on the natural bars, or an average of about 47,000 bushels per year. The greater portion of both shell and seed plantings v;ere made in the tributary v/aters, the small portion being distributed on selected areas in the Chesapeake Bay.

-8-

In regard to stimulating private oyster culture, the Legisla- ture as early as 1906 enacted laws permitting the leasing of certain sub- merged bottoms to private interests for the propagation and grovrth of oys- ters. These and subsequent laws have been so restrictive in character that private culture in Maryland has never attained any substantial develop- ment.

Failure of the efforts of the State to check dovnn,;ard trend in oyster production - vVhilo the efforts on the part of the State to stem the depletion of the public oyster bars have met v.lth some degree of success, its activities have never been conducted on a large enough scale to bring back into productivity even a fair portion of the extensive potentially pro- ductive bottoms. Even though its efforts had attained the highest possible degree of success, vast areas of suitable grounds v/ould still remain unpro- ductive.

When it is pointed out that 1,000 bushels of shells are re- quired on the average to plant one acre of bottom, and that the charted natural oyster bars of Maryland comprise an area of about 265,000 acres, it is apparent that at the present annual rate of shell planting (764,000 bushels) over 300 years vrauld be required to cover this entire area. In other words, the quantity of shells now annually available is sufficient for planting only about 700 to 800 acres of bottom.

This same analysis raaj-- be applied to the efficacy of seed planting operations. As pointed out previously, the State in recent years has been planting an average of 47,000 bushels annually on the public bars. Since it requires approximately 500 bushels of seed oysters efficiently to stock an acre of bottom, the average annual quantity of seed planted by the

State has been sufficient to cover barely 100 acres of ground per year.

/ The efforts of the State to stimulate oyster culture by pri- vate interests through leasing of submerged areas has met with only a small degree of success. The State laws that are nov/ in force are so restrictive

1

-9-

in character that it is almost impossible for private interests to engage profitably in large-scale planting oper^^tions. The grounds available for leasing are to a large extent vmsuited fur such purposes, which, together Y/ith the small maximum size of area leasable and the restriction against the negotiation of leases by corporationr and joint-r.tock companies, have materially retarded the development of private oyster culture in Maryland. The lack of adequate and efficient police protection, and the demoralizing competition of the small ungraded oysters teJcen from the public bars have also discouraged mrny v/ould-be lessees. As a result of these many unfavor- able circumstances, the total area under lease has at no time in the State' s history been as much as 10,000 acres. In recent years the total acreage under lease has shewn a slow but gradual contraction, with that for 1934 being on practically the same levels as in 1928.

Despite the State's constructive activities, the oyster pro- duction has continued to decline, reaching in 1933 the lowest levels on record. Judging from the above discussionj it should be obvious that the present State policies, due to their limited effectiveness, can scarcely be relied upon for a restoration of the oyster bars of Maryland to the high de- gree of productiveness they cnce enjoyed.

Comparative importance of private und public ovrter culture - The legal provisions in Maryland governing the leasing of submerged lands for oyster culture differ materially in some respects from those in most of the oyster-producing States, especially in those \;ith a large portion of their production coming from private beds. In most of those States larger areas of land may be leased, corporations and joint-stock companies may lease such lands for oyster planting, and, as a general rule, there are certain specific requirements for planting upon leased areas. In order to point out the relative importance in the various Atlantic and Gulf States of private and public oyster bars, certain pertinent observations are pre- sented herewith.

From the data shovm in Tables 7 and 8, it will be noted that

-10- durin.j the four-year period from 1929 to 1932, inclusive, 47.4 per cent of

the volume and 68.2 per cent of the value of the entire oyster production of the Atlantic and Gulf States vvcrc. obtained from private beds. This situ- ation indicates the hij^-her per bushel va.lue of the oysters tal:en from pri- vate e^rounds in contrast to those talren from public fishing areas. This contention is borne out oy the fijjures in t?ble 9, which show the average per bushel value of oysters talcen from private beds, in the group of States named, to have been $0.99 ir. comparison with an average per bushel value of only $0.42 for those taken from public bars.

It is important to note that all of the important oyster prod.ucing States shown in t-ablc 7, with the exceptions of Maryland and Mississippi, obtained the major portion of their pruduction from private beds. Tiie concentration of private oyster-culture is noticeably apparent in the New England pJid Middle Atlantic States and in Louisiana, where the volume of the catch from private grotmds exceeds 90 per cent of the total production. The average per hushel value of the oysters taken in these States is also generally hi-iier than, the average for those Stcates where the greater portion of the production comes from r)ublic ba.rs.

The information given in t-^ble 10 illustrates the financial loss that is being suffered by Maryland oystermen through the State's fail- ure to produce a quality product. In 1931 the average vnlue per gallon for Maryland fresh-shucked oysters was $1.17, in t}iat same year the average for the Atlantic and Gulf States as a group was $1.50{ for tlie Nev; England States, $2.20; for the Middle Atlantic States $2.06; and for Virginia, $1.47. If the 1,858,114 gallons of oysters shucked in Maryland in 1931 hr.d merely the average value for the Atlantic a,nd Gulf States as a "vhole, the financial position of the oystemen and pa.c2:ers would have been improved by at least $600,000. These sta.tistics demonstrate a;;ain the fact tha.t those States, where a large portion of the oyster catch is obtained from private grounds, generally receive a higher price for their productions.

The compPBhensive character of the data presented in the four tables mentioned above renders unnecessary a full discussion here. It is reccimnended that their contents be given the most c'ii-<.;ful study and considera- tion.

Necessity for .change of do"!!::/ i:i IJa'^/land - The comparisons presented -\bove indicate thct Liaiyland is coxifronting a competition in oyster production that may, because of its character, jeopardize her position as one of the leading oyster-producing States. This position has been maintained in the past almost entirely upon the production of the public beds of the State.

On the other hand, the strong competitive position of certain other leading oyster-prcducing Status is being safeguarded and strengthened by an effective encouragement of private planting, end by supplementing the catch from public beds by an extensive procuction that has resulted from the development of private beds.

In view of the extensive private planting operations that are being conducted in certain other leading oyster-proaucing states, it is becom- ing increasingly apparent that Lkry land's present position as a leading oys- ter producer can be maintained in the future only through a radical revision of present policies.

From previous statenents contained in this introductory material, it should be clear that it is mar.ifestly impossible for the S'-.ate, except at great expense, to und3rt'U<;e ??.ny prograu of rcstoratioii that vould in any sub- stantial measure bring back into productivity the extensive areas that are now barren. It should also be apparent that tmder present leasing laws pri- vate culture v/ill not be developed to any appreciable degree.

The only practical alternative to a continuation of present policies, would be for the State to expand its effortr as far as possible toT/ards restoring the pubZic oyntcr bars and to supplement these activities by providing, through amended and new legislation, a fundaj.ental structure for the development of bona fide private oyster-planting Gper9tions on a much more extensive scale than has yet been undertaken in this State.

i

-12-

RECOi'.'lMENDAriONS

1. RESURVEf OF OYSIER BARS.

To provide for nore efficient policing, for the determina- tion of areas suited for developmental purposes, and for guidance in formu- lation of conservation policies, it is recommended that a resurvey be made of the chorted oyster bottoms of the State. It is suggested that the new survey be undertaken in cooperation v;ith the United States Bureau of Fisheries. In the conduct of the resurvey there should be included at least one practical tonger or dredger thoroughly fcniliar with local condi- tions in the several regions.

2. DEVELOPMElJr OF SEED AREAS.

?/hereas Maryland is, in a large measure, dependent upon other states for seed oysters, especially in the lov/er bay regions and in the coastal section of V.orcester County, it is recommended that the pre- sent designated seed areas north of a line dravm northeasterly from Seven Foot Knoll above the general tonging and dredging areas, should be e: - tcnsively developed for the production of seed oysters. In addition, several barren, but once productive areas, such as upper-Honga river, Dorchester County, and certain sections of Eastern Bay, Queen Anne's County, should be developed into seed areas.

3. DISPOSITION OF SEED OYSTERS.

As a measure toward rehabilitating Maryland's oyster industry, it is recommended that the seed oysters produced on the areas to be intensively developed should be disposed of by the administrative authorities in the follov/ing propcrations: 60 per cent of the entire produc- ■L'ion should be planted on public bars, c'^iosen because of their special adaptability to produce quality oysters in substantial volume, the plant- ing to be equally divided between dredging and tonging grounds, while the regaining 40 pnr crnt of the total seed output frou these areas should be n<-..ds available for pri'"'ate purposes. It is furthar recommended that

-IS- tho months of April n.nd V.^.y should be dcsienntod r.s the ropr.on in which seed oysters may "be Irvvfully t-iken from the public "bods, and that the seed oysters thus obtained should not be sold outside of the State.

4. SHELL PLAITTIIIG.

In that shell planting has produced tpngiblo results in certain suctions of the State, especially on seed areas, it is recommended that this policy be continued to the extent of the ability of the State and the oyster industry to assume the financial burden involved. In future shell planting activities, however, greater care should be exercised in the selection of suitable areas for dcvelOTJnent so as to avoid the wasteful practice of smothering out gro-zin^ oysters, and to discontinue the placing of shells in sections having insufficient quantities of brood oysters.

5. SPECIAL COIISERVATIOII FIHAIICES.

In order to finance the suggested program for large scale transplanting on public beds of oysters from seed areas to public beds, it is recommended that the administrative authorities grant permits to the dredgers p.nd tongers of the State to operate during April and May for pur- poses of gathering seed; sixty per cent of the seed oysters tp.ken from such areas to be transported and planted on previously designated bottoms under proper supervision; and the remaining forty percent of the total catch to become the property of the fishermen operating under permission. In Tiew of the fact that Maryland's fishery industries are carrying a heavy tax burden, and since the revenue nov accruing to the Conservation Department can be made to cover essential ad-mini strativc and developmental work, it is also recommended that no additional taxes or fees be levied on these industries under present conditions.

6. INADEQUACY C? FPJISEITT LEASE LAWS OF TRIBUTARY WATERS.

Since a Maryland oysterman cannot lease areas of suffi- icent size in tributary w.aters, thirty rcreas being the limit, -vith v;hich to conduct a pl?iJiting business successfully, and since it is generally

-14- kro'vn that most of the succescful planters in the 2tate are no'.v holding t}'-8ir ground by means not only unsatisfactory to them, but, in many cases, ii]ogally, there should be changes in the present oyster laws to permit of larger holdings. It is recommended that the lease lav? for tributary v/aters be amended to conform vlth that nc.v; in operation in Virginia; (a) by '.vhich tv/o hundred and fifty acres mry be accpircd in any one laase and (b) such holdings m^ be acquired by individuals, joint stock holders, or corporations, provided such indi^ridiials are citizens of the State and that holding bodies, as such, be organized uuder the lav/s of Maryiland. It is further recommended that discretionary pov/er be vested in the con- servation authorities to determine, whether or not a given section, having been declared barren, after adequate survey, is available for leasing when qualified application for same has been made. In addition, discretionary povrers should be given the conservation authorities v.'hereby they may cancel leases v/hen bottoms held under them are not being used for the planting, the holding, or the fattening of oysters. 7. ADDED AREA FOR LEASING.

Many of thp areas no\7 held in the State for oyster culture are utterly unfit for planting purposes, v/hlle several thousand acres of ground formerly highly productive lie fallov; and are nov; entirely unpro- ductive, only because their use for p-ivata culture is not permitted by existing lav/s. The State's present supply of large oysters contrary to

V

'"/he general understanding, is obtained principally from the waters of Long If;land vSound, Ne\7 Jers^ and Virginia, and not from Maryland beds. In •"•iev' of th'^se conditions, it is reconuMended that the present unproductive are. 3 lying ii) the Chasapsake Bay, tot'.;sen Flum Point and Co-"-e Point, off of CrJlvero a.^o D'lrc^Ci-'t^-r Counties, should be rendorod subject to lease, tha^ ■a-iki-.g thc-^ svailable for private oyster culture. In Actions 4 and >J of this repor";. roccrjiendations "rere made in anticipation of developing ur;-3ftr piivr^te raaragsmort the ab^'"e mentioned area, so as to create a

-15- public bars, p.nd to cover the expanse of transplanting the sixty percent of seed oysters to be allocated to the 3Ta'blic beds for the benefit of tong- ers ?ijid dredgers. Additional funds for trpiisplanting operations will be- conc avnilable through the payment by lessees of rental fees and production taxes as now established, thus malcing this part of the projected progrpun self-supporting.

8. ADDITIONAL POWERS FOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITES.

Since most of our natural resources fluctuate in abund- ance from season to season, or even within a single season, according to natural phenomena, as \7ell as in the matter of supply and dcm.and, and since the unyielding nature of many conservation laws operate against the public interest, it is recomnondod that there should be vested in the conservation authorities discretionary powers related to seasons, methods, uses, areas and similar variables involved in consorvation administration.

9. LEASING OF THE SEASIDE AREAS IN WORCESTER COUNTY.

In view of the fact that the natural inlet at Ocean City, connecting the inland Tvaters of Worcester County, with the Atlantic Ocean, has been made permanent, through cooperative Federal and State agencies, thereby assuring suitable conditions for the development of nc:i fishing areas, it is recommended that the available charted barren bottoms of this region be leased for developmental purposes as soon as the conservation officia,ls can effect the nocessiry arrangements, in accord?.nce with the following conditions: (a) That leasing should cover the heretofore unpro- ductive areas embraced by the Isle of Wiglit Bry, the Sincpuxent Bay, and the reaches of the Chincoteague Bay, north of a line drawn from Public Landing to Broken Marshes (Robin's ll^xshcs) , and thence due East to the beach; (b) That below this line of demarcation leasing should be delR.ycd until the full effect of the inlet on the oysters located there, on long established beds, can be determined, since at this tine there are indica- tions of unfavorable results grov/ing out of the construction of the inlet V7hich may require early readjustments.

-16-

10. CRAB RESOURCES.

Since the blue crab resource of the Chesapeake Bay has dsclined materially during the past tv/o years, and in order to avoid in the crab industry a repetition of such a serious situation as that exper- ienced in 1925, it is recommended that the following suggestions be enacted into law, V.'orcester County to be exempted: (l) that it be made illegal to capture male hard crabs for commercial purposes wliich measure less than five and one-half inches, the present legal minimum being five inches; (2) that the season for taking crabs in the waters of Maryland be established to include the period from May 1 to October SI, inclusive, thereby eliminating the month of November from the crabbing season,

11. COOPERATION Y/ITH VIRGINIA.

Conservation of Chesapealce Bay resources is an essentially interstate matter involving Maryland and Virginia. Ihe oyster industiy of America is now in a destructive slump v/ithout relief in sight. The res- ponsibility for these conditions largely rests upon the oystermen of the tvro States named. Inferior stock, absence of established standards of quality and size, obsolete business methods, and lack of cooperation within the industry at large to effect necessary reforms, are the outstanding characteristics. The crab industry, largely confined to the Chesapeake Bay also repeatedly suffers from the same unfavorable conditions. Because of the marked need of complete cooperation and understanding on the part of the tv.'o States, it is recommended that the Governor of .Maryland initiate a conference of the Governors of the tv/o States, their conservation offi- cials, and representatives of the crab and oyster industries, in order that more satisfactory conditions of cooperation may be established for the sea- food industries.

dfnj

I

-17-

CHAPTLR 1.

RESURVEY OF OYSTER BM<S

Ai-ea of Maryland'.': "natural" oyster bars - In the ori- ginal survey and charting of the oyster bottoms of Maryland, frequently referred to as the "1906 Survey", made by the U. S. Hydrographic and Goodetic Survey and the Maryland Oyster Commission, cooperating, all bottoms which viere known as "oyster rocks" or "oyster bars" v/ere in- cluded. Not only those bottoms which were productive at the time, but those whose texture or construction gave indication of once having been productive, although actually barren, were included as well. As a result of this work and other surveys, approximately 265,000 acres of bottom were charted. This acreage, by law, was set aside as public grounds to be held for purposes of public fishing. No changes in this acreage have since been made.

Decline in production on "natural" oyster bars - The original acreage of public grounds included all the areas which had been fished during the decade of 1880 when oyster production in the State reached its peak. That is, the public oyster grounds of 1955, v.lth a production of less than 2,000,000 bushels are, in extent, as great as they were in 1880 when the production was at least five tines greater. To express it differently, the acreage has remained unchanged during this period while the yield has fallen from 10,600,000 bushels in 1880 to 1,778,506 bushels in 1933, a dedline of 83.2 percent (See table l) ,

Depletion of "natural" oyster bars - As the yield of oysters from the bar:: declined from year to year, the decrease was not registered uniformly over the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. On the contrary, those bars which produced the better grade or quality of oysters were the first to be depleted and then made barren. One after another of the rocks which produced quality oysters ("Selects" and "Counts") was exhausted with a consequent shifting of intensive fishing operation

-18- to neighboring beds. This shifting spread from Tangier Sound (1885), from whence our choicest oysters v/ere obtained, to the freaher waters at the head of the Bay (1930). The Tangier area's production dropped until at present it yields 2,000,000 bushels fevjer oysters per year and it is practically non- productive. The best estimates available indicate that this body of water produced not in excess of 24,000 bushels during 1935.

No figures similar to those sited in preceding paragraph are available to show tiie decline in production during this same period for individual rocks located elsev;hcre in the Bay. Hoi.evcr, the region off Calvert County, between Cove Point and Chesapeake Beach, a section which once produced a very fine type of oyster, has become so exhausted that the bars in the vicinity of Flag Pond, Governor's Run, Dare's Wharf, Plum Point, and like rocks across the Bay, do not offer a catch per unit effort justifying the work.

An experienced observer, placed in a commanding position- in this region for a two weeks' period immediately before the Christmas (1934) holidays, when the demand is strongest, observed during eleven working days, that only eight dredge boats made a serious effort to take oysters from the points named. Nine other boats made "trial licks" and sailed av/ay in search of better grounds, as did the first after their failure. Observations v/ere made in the Fall of 195k: v.ith similar results. These facts substantiate the general claim that the dredge fleet almost entirely avoids this section. The Chesapeake Biological Laboratory es- timates that these same areas are capable of producing 1,750,000 bushels of oysters per year, or: (l) approximately as many oysters as are now pro- duced in New Jersey, a large part of which are marketed by Mary landers, as being produced in Chesapeake Bay, because of the failure to produce large oysters at home; and (2) approximately as many oysters as are now pro- duced annually in all of Maryland. This situation is heightened by the fact that potentially productive areas in the State, at least five times as large as the Calvert bars, are likerd.se fallow or non-productive.

-19-

State's most productive dred.'^ing; grounas no-.v threatened - The dredge, v;hile more efficient ini harvesting oysters, is n.ore destructive to the beds than are tongs. That is v/hy the Bay bars, '.vhere dredging operations have been permitted from the start, have suffered greatest de- pletion. During the earlier days of the industr:/- the up-Bay oysters, such as "rea-tables" and 'Tolchesters", nent into the canning trade, not being considered satisfactoi:/' for shucking (rav;) stock. Records for the current year show that the dealers of the State must depend upon oysters from the fresher waters, formerly not used at all because of size, to sup- ply their trade. The last stand of the Bay's rabi^ral oyster supply, in quantities, is now being intensively fished, at least on the dredging grounds, and the threat is a serious. one.

Non-proQUctive area cont ributed to inefficient law en- forcement - It has been estimated by University of Maryland biologists that approximately one-fifth of the public oyster bars in the Chesapeake proper are now producing in CjUantities v.'hich attract dredge boats and that the re- naining four-fifths have ceased to produce. The present policing system requires that these non-productive areas be policed alon^ with the others, thus contributing to the lack of efficiency in law enforcement. Should a resurvey be made it vould be possible to establish those sections which should be policed, with resulting efficiency and economy. In addition, through establishing definitely the areas which still produce and, there- fore, afford brood stock, sounder policies for public bed development pur- poses could be formulated. By delineating the absoluteJ.y barren and non- productive sections a poller,'' may be ■.vor-ced out v.hereby private capital cculd be interested in the problem of rectoring Maryland's oyster industry.

/' rcnurvey of the o^£^'er bottoms of Kar/land, becau.se of the vast changes th^.t hdve t=iken place since liie old survey, would be fair to the watermen end fjliould rcaot in their favor since it would afford the better policing they v?eslre, sounder conservation policies v:hich theiy deem essential, and

lA.iUh ■::

■.-:"!

-20- r.n opportunity to develop, by State shell-planting or other'-dse,. only thofae areas capable of development rather Uuji spread th-- limited effort out over vast territory much of \i^ich is nov; beyond redGirpbion by the shell-planting method.

To safeguard complete!^ the interests of th'i men v/ho earn their livelihood from oystering, tiie services of competent out-of-State agencies such as the U.. S. Bureau of Fisheries end the Geodetic Surv^ should be secured to do the work. As a further safeguard to the v.'ater- men's interests in the matter throughout the survey operations, which would require approximately one year for completion, it should be under- stood that at least one practical and reliable man, chosen by local groups of oystermen, should be present v.-hen observations are made in a given section so that his judgment and advice might be available in arriving at decisions.

-21- CHAFTER ?..

DEVELOPnOT OF SEED iiREAS

Depletion of Marylgnd' s seed-oyster bars - Seed oysters produced in Maryland thrive in waters located from Virginia to Connecticut, and planters throughout this territory give thorn preference when a depend- able supply is available. It is generally acknowledged among the oystermen that reckless sale of small oysters during the 1880-1900 period to New England planters, v/as a basic cause of depletion in .Maryland. According to the 1929 annual report of the ?Jaryland Conservation Department, there v/ere shipped north, for planting in the Sp-r'ing of 1879, 2,178,750 bushels of seed oysters. The exportation of such vast quantities of seed oysters is one of the fundamental reasons for the destruction of the State' s aquatic wealth.

Coastal planters at tlriis time can afford to pay as much per bushel (i.e. 20 to ?0 cents) for the up-Bay product to be used for seed as can local dealers who olace them in the shucked oyster trade with de- pressing effect on the market. However, such planters do not compete for the seed, since production of this type of oyster is extremely variable, as is shown by the fact that during such years as 1929 and 1950 no seed were harvested at all, while in 1934, 167,094 bushels were produced. Seed in large quantities from the same areas wore sold every year without in- terruption from 1830 iintil 1904.

Comparison of seed production in Maryland and New Jersey - Through advanced planning the state of Nev/ Jersey is no longer dependent upon Maryland and other states for her seed oysters. The comparatively small acreage upon which their seed could be grown v/as developed by the state to the fullest extent. A constant and dependable supply of seed was made available and the industry there has grovm in direct proportion to the yield of seed until the Delaware Bay now is the leading producing area. Maryland, vdth its vast acreage unusually v.'ell suited to seed production

-22-

is nov.' producing 45,694 bushels i)er year, the average for six years, 1929- 1034, as set forth in the Twelfth Annual Report, Maryland Conservation De- partment, page 20. New Jersey at the same time is producing an average of aoproximately 2,250,000 bushels of seed per year. Maryland with its greater potential seed producing acreage is actually producing less than 3.0 per cent as many seed as New Jersey. It is generally conceded that Maryland bottoms are of a better type and quality than are those of New Jersey. The difference, of course, lies in the policy of management. Maryland oystermen go to Nev/ Jersey in numbers during seed capture season, finding it necessary to leave the Chesapeake to secure employment.

Restoration of seed jroducing areas readily possible - Ex- perimental tests, by means of shells placed in wire baskets, and by physical and biological examinations, made by the State Laboratory, indicate that the present yield of seed oysters in Maryland may be increased fourfold with- in a three-year period by a change in policy in connection with the present public shell-planting operations. This could be accomplished by diverting shells from bottoms which have not demonstrated marked possibilities in quali- ty production and placing them on the seed areas. In addition it has been abundantly demonstrated that the upper section of Honga River, an area of 3,000 acres in Dorchester county, and approximately the same acreage in Eastern Bay, east and south of the Parsons' Island - Crab Alley section, now non-productive, can be developed immediately at a very reasonable cost. Such v.'ork could be done by planting shells at the rate of 1,000 bushels per acre.

One demonstration is here cited. Under the direction of the State Laboratory, the 1,000 acre Experimental Area in Honga River, created by the Legislature in 1951, had 42,000 bushels of shells planted on 50 acres of bottom over a three-year period. Four thousand bushels of seed oys- ters were removed from this area early in the fall of 1934, being taken from a section of approximately four acres. It xias estimated at the time by those working on the seed that at least 50,000 bushels have been produced

I

-23-

on this fzround which previously had not produced oysters for years. Devel-

easily opment of such areas as these alontj v/ith the established seed areas/would

restore Maryland's seed, production to its one tine hi^Ji level and meet, in turn, not only the necjds in the State, but restore the trade it once held out of the Str.te.

Provision for adequate seed area.s - As indicr.ted, the pre- sent bars designated as "Seed areas", all jf which lie above the (general tongin^; and dredgin^: ^iTounds, n.nd such places as those in the Honga River and Eastern Bay, discussed above, are large enou'dx in area to produce a sufficient quantity of seed oysters for a twenty year plannin.,- period.

-E4-

C:iA?T5R 3 DISPOSITIOIT OF SEP 0YST35S

Sufficient acreage nvailable for bot}> "ublic and ^private •plant in,v - The raaiuteiiance and. development of public oyrter ^grounds for both dred.-injf: and tonfjinu operations are an outstanding feature of this Conservation Plan. Bottonis now producing: and those with decided possib- ilities should be l:e23t intact for the use of the public. Only bottoms which are barren nnd v/ithout rersor.able prospect of rehabilitp.tion, except by excessive cost to the State, are reccnriended for leasinjr pur;^)osos. Since there are approxirnately 255,000 acres of clirrte^ bottoms there is s\ifficient room for both public and private: operations and the tv/o enterprises should benefit each other.

Plan \7ill r-id both public and priva.te operations - Since oysters of acccptrblc sizes ("Co^onts") are not, and by the very nature of the methods of operating cannot be {^rovvn on public beds in this or other Sta.tes, privately grov/n lar .-e stock v;ill help to restore the industry, while the demand for small oysters, primarily the chain store outlet, will not be affected. Private planters will have to carry the burden of rehabilitation on such f^rounds as they may lease, which burden, for the next fcvr yep.rs at least, will be made li-^-ter by the American Oyster Producer's Credit Associ- ation, a Governrtient ajieiicy or;;ajiized to finance and. assist private oyster plajitintv. The funds jf this r,,-ency a.re not available for public planting purposes.

Potential production under inter sive public oxir -private planting: operations - As indicated above, it has been demon stra-ter^ repeatly by competent state authorities tl^X seed areas can be developed and their yield ..greatly increased. By limitiriri: shell planting to bottoms which are abundantly supplied with brood stock, th^.t is, by placing shells only on Croionds which ^-ive definite assurances of a. catch, and usin^ the remainder

I

of the shells avnilr.ble for seed bed pur:ioses, it is estimated tliat 5,000,000 bushels Df sec;'', oysters could oc producer ar.nur.lly i:. the Stnte, within a five year period. Wiiat this means can better be understood when v/e consider that Maryland's avera,je annual output of seed for the past five years has been only 45,694 busliels. Equitable distribution of this added yield of seed betv/t: en public and private beds should increase the States' annual yield of merchantable oyster to approximately 6,000,000 bushels, or a pot- ential annua.l production of coth market rnd seed oysters a/;jrcgatin<;^ over 10,000,000 bushels vvithir. a ten or t'velve year period. In the course of producin."; this vast sup;)ly of oysters, tlie public fishermen would be called upon to capture and hai-.dle all of the 5,000,000 oushels of seed aaid between 5,000,000 a:-id 6,000,000 of bushels of merchantable oysters. Private industry will be expected to prodaice between four and five million bushels of lartje oysters only.

Equitable distribution of seed oysters r-rown on public beds In effecting the projected pro,;ra'a of production, the .-:reater part, sixty per cent should .:o to public beds in the Bay and the rivers. Forty per cent of the seed should be made available by the State to planters offerin^^ the highest bid.s, and accord.in.-; to a fixed adrainistrntive policy. It is antici- pated that the allotment to private interests, althoUfOi much smaller, will produce under lar.iinj conddtions as many oysters, by measure, as the larger plantings ma.de on public bed,s, since, in the latter tyje of production, oysters are ta^-zen as far as pos?ible as soon as they reach le;"al size, v/hcre- as on private beds they are held for two or three yea.rs in order to assure size and quality.

Care in selectin.; sTounds for -.;ublic plaiitin^; - In con- nection with the plr-itin.; of seed oysters on public beds, the Conservation Comrtission should be called upon to use every discretion in choosin;-; grounds by and with the advice of practical oystermen in the various sections. Wi.ere- as shells should be planted only where there are livin.p oysters or brood

-26- stock, seed oyster should be planted on depleted bars.

Serson for ta2:in>r seed oysters - The months of April and May should be desifpiatcd as the season for seed oyster handling so that employment would be afforded toni;ers njid trQdr-ers durin.,- the poorest part of the oyster year. During, these months, about 5.Z per cent of the voliome of the States oyster business is carried on.

Prohibition of out-of-State sales of seed oysters - While

p

it is anticipn.ted in this plan tliat within/five or six year period suffici- ent seed oysters will be produced in Maryland to meet local needs, it is recoe';nized that, for the present, sale of seed out of the State should be prohibited.' When a fair de^jree of rehabilitation of the public rocks has been accomplished and an adequate develoioment of private culture has been accomplished for the State, added competition for seed oysters on the part of foreign planters would create a better market.

-27-

CEAFTER 4 SHELL PLANTING

Successes and failures in shell v;l.intinf: - Sliell planting operations in Maryland hr.ve been hif^^hly successful in sona, but not in other cases. Specific illustrations are as follows: (l) 60,000 bushels of shells planted on Harris Pock have not produced oysturs at all. This plantinf^? v/as checked durinr: five successive sumr.ers by a representative of the State University interested in tlie work and he reports fa.ilure for the project. (2) 9,000 bushels of shells planted on Middlec;round Bar in the Patuxent during; 1932, and reported on by tiie same official, showed an ex- cellent catch and subsequent incrense in production for the bar in question. It was estimated that for each bushel of shells planted on this bar a bushel of oysters v;as yielded and that, after the culling operation, many of the shells remained on the bar to assure further catch. (3) 42,000 bushels of shells, planted on the Seed Experimental Area, in the Honj-a River, vihere there was loiown to be an abundance of free sv/imning (larval) oysters, yields a bushel of oysters for each busliel of shells planter', and approximately 55 per cent of the shells remained intact after the cullint,- operation was completed. (4) On a section of Carrol's Bank, a fine rock in the Patuxent, shells were planted on top of a fair supply of oysters. The result was that the oysters were smothered out and the bed injured rather tlian improved.

Brood oysters essential for successful shell 'planting - Prom the denonstrations cited, it is apparent tl;a,t the success of shell planting; is dependent upon the wise selection of ^reas chosen for develop- ment. Shell plantin.:: does not work successfully if carried on without re- gard to the conditions ti.at obtain on the areas on which attempts at re- storation are being raa.de. A scieiitific approach througl. a State supported institution, the Marine Laboratory, has been made to this particular sub- ject while tiie advice of practical men can be secured freely. Combining the

-28-

infomrtion froM tliesc Sjurces, the seluctior. of botto.as suitec". to develop- mental measures shoiold be reriily possible. It is patent, however, thnt barren bars cannot be made productive by shell pir.ntin;; alone. Bro.:)d oy- sters are as essential to the ;)roposation of this animal in the v/ater as is brood stock in agricultural pursuits. The decree of depletion of a given bar detcrnines its fitness for rehabilitation. If totally barren an area must be supplied with brood stock as v/ell as v/ith shells.

An iiapartial survey of the shell pl.antinj activities of the State shows tl^t approximately 4,000,000 bushels of shells have been re- turned to the bottoms since 1930. An analysis of the fii;ures of production does not show an increase in yield of oysters in tha.t period. However, it does show that the average decrease in production per yerr since 1880, some 300,000 bushels, may }:ave been arrested. Greatest benefits from shell plant- int; have coma from areas v/hich produce Maryland's lerst desirable oysters, a fact explained by the presence on such area.s of an abundance of brood oysters. In the middle and lov;er sections of the Bay, including Tangier Sound proper, shell plantin;.; has been a. failure oven though in two or tliree instances a catch was obtained.

Shell plantin:,- most desirable en seed area.s - As an emer- gency measure in times of distress, such as the present, appro. >riations by the State for purchase of shells to rehabilitate the oyster resources may- be justified, especially if confined to the trioutrry waters and the areas in the upper sections of the Bay. The greatest vr>lue in shell plajiting is to be found in the development of seed beds to produce oysters which later may be transplanted to partially depleted beds upon which better quality oysters may be grown. To use shells to produce more and more of the type of oyster that is beint; marketed from severa,l points in Maryland at the present time is to drive down still further the market value of the com- modity and in turn force upon the watermen a wage scale upon v/hich they cannot wholesomely live. Tne present countrywide depressed state of the

-29-

oystcr business and the lor; consuiTotion IjvcI (the per capita consumption in 1930 ■being 77.3 per cent Iocs than in 1880) is generally considered to be due, in a substantial measure, to the quality of the product no-f sold from the Chccapooke, oysters in certain shipments made from Maryland having been founcj to contain as many as 760 to the gallon, v/hon the Code standard set for this grade in the industry at large is a minimum of 270 per gallon. To commit the State to the burden of shell purchase to further this anamolous situation is to fail to recognize the principles involved.

Insufficient quantity of shells available for effective restorcation - To those limited areas where worth'.Thilo oysters may be grovm for the market by the shell planting method, shells should be returned. Likewise, they should be placed on the vast areas '.There seed nay be pro- duced subsequently to be transferred to "q^aality" producing grounds. At the present rate of shell planting, it is estimated that at least thirty years would be required to develop even these limited areas. If private capital and initiative are not called in to assist in the problem of developing this resource it becomes obvious that, to start an upvrard trend in production, every shell taken from the r/atcrs should be comnandesred and returned to the bottoms without cost to the State.

-30-

C'IAJTaH 5

3PECTAL CCN3IRV\TI0^' T'^V^Cy.S

Committee's Hecorrmendations involve no additional finsn- cial bjrden on the industry or State - In preparing itd pl-^ns for rehabili- tating "Maryland's oyster industry, the Connittee gave special considera- tion to those corrective measures that could be Guccessfully placed into effect without the necessity for additional expenditures on the part of the St-^te Government or the industry itself. ?his assumption vas based largely on the fact that the oyster industry is ilready heavily burdened with taxation, and the revenue nnd aDproprint ions accruing to the Con- servation Department cm be made to cover the usscntial requirements.

The basic fe-itures of the Committee's plan for finrm- cing its rehabilitory program involve the intensive development of seed areas as well as the public :ind privnte oyster -producing grounds. These activities are intended to be supplenentary rather th'jn competitive. The leasing of extensive areas for private culture: would require large quantities of seed oysters to stock the leased beds. In order to meet this potentially enormous demand, it is rocomnendod that seed areas be intensively developed. The revenue that ?/ould bo derived from the snle to private planters of the rccotnended 40 per cent of seed oysters taken by the dredgers and tongsrs during \.pril and !!ay vould be utilized by compensating the fishermen for taking the 40 p?r cent referred to and also to pay the cost of removing the remaining 60 per cent to public tonging ard dredging bara.

-SI

IN\DEQJJ\CY OF PREoErT LE\3E LAV"3 11! TRIHUT/JiY ""AT^S

Necessity for leasing - liT-ile the efforts of the Con- servation Department, through shell-planting activities and the trans- planting of seed oysters fro:i upper Bay areis, have been helpful to the industry, they will operate to maintain only th(; present iaadequate supply; and it is very doubtful v.'hether the production fron the public bars can be m'iterially incre-ised, except at r)rohibitive cost to the State. On the other hand, it is recognized thnt the pr:.duction of oysters in Maryland can be greatly increased by the development in this Stat^, as in other importniit oyster-producing states, of bona fide oyster culture by priv'jt3 interests. The States that are offering the most fornidable competition to ''"ryland in th-:. country's oyster market are those v:hich take most of thr^ir production from priv-te b;?d3 , and v;hich have attempted to safe-guard the future of the industry ind to st'bilizc it on a high level by means of privote planting.

Small maximum size of ar:-a I'-". sable in count;,^ '.vaters - The present lavv restricts the size of the area that may be leased by one person for oyster culture to 30 acrus v.ithin thu boundary limits of a county, except in T .ngier S.mnd wh^re the maxi-.ium is 100 acres. These areas, .and those of smaller dimensions that are under le-ise, are so small as to be of comparatively little comnercinl imnortroice. Operations must be restricted largely to tonr-ing; and the canst'int use of the same ground, year after year, would t:.-;:d to reduce its productivity. Ii such import- ant oyster -producing States as Nc;. York and Kev J'jrsey, no maximum size of area to be leased is specified by lav/, while in Virginia the maximum area leasable in tributary v.'--,ters is materially higher than that for T'iarj'^land.

-32-

Prejient^jQj^hf d? .of hcy-c!_inr Icasod areas unsatlrfaor '^XX~ The Mr.ryland law proviltis fhat no one person may lease, assign, or iri ar.y ether manrjer acquire a grester amount of land than 50 acres sit- iioteJ wit.h;.r the territorial limits of a coimty (except Tangier Soiind) for the parposes of oyster planting. It is reported that many Maryland planters are operating leased areas which are held in the naires of other persons, employees, relatives, friends, etc. The un^vise legislative re- strictions referred to above have forced the planters to circionvent the law. In addition to being illegal, this method of operating leased areas has one other serious disadvantage. Even if a planter should place seed or shells on the 50 acres of bottom held in his own nane, and at the same time makes similar investments on areas leased from the State by others, but operated by him, it 7;ould not be possible for the planter to pledge as collateral for bank loans the investment on the bottoms held in names other than his own. This is due to the fact that the planter would not have title to the bottoms operated by him but leased by others, since the State law prohibits the acquiring of more than 50 acres by any one individual through assignment or any other method. Virginia, for example, permits the assignment or sub-renting of leased oyster bottoms, although the maximum which one may so acquire is 5,000 acres. Such an area would be equal to more than one-third of the total acreage now under lease in Maryland,

Restrictions agc.inst the negotiation of leases by corporqt:' ons and .ipirt -stock ■';ocp.'in.i-es - The Maryland law prohibits the io-xcing to <;orp'"raiions or jrjjr': -stock companies of public bottoms for oypt.jr pDarMnf;, TnJ.s legal i-ea-^riction tends to retard any markedly 3ff3cl.l'-o rebahii;.t--ition of the Stale's oyster r&scuroes, through the e'Liji:'.r!aVi c'l c: thos^^ iriter?!3ts that posi^ess £r.'.ff i cicnt capital to con- -•JuTt 2ar^e sca-le opnracions.

L^3-

In the ^Gt'ites producing largcj gaTitities of oysters fron priv.to bods,

-sA such IS Ne'.>; York, Connecticut, Rhodv. Isl-ind, Virginia, /Louisi^m, corp-

ontions are permitted to lease public bottoms for oyster culture, Nev;

Jersey in this respect, bjing the principal oxception. In such States

it is generally provided that corporations involved must be chartered

in the State in question, or at least h-vo their principal place of

business located there.

Added pov;ers for consurvation authorities v/ould assist developnent of private planting - Under the present law, each opplication for leasing public bottoms for oyster culture purposes is subject to pro- test by the oystermen. That is, three or more persons m-^y come into court and make oath that they have resorted to the particular area in question for a livelihood during the previous five years, and the Court is reqi-ired to declare sue': grounds to be natural oyster b-^rs and, there- fore, not ••vilable for le-ising. It is felt th-t the present practice operates against the public interest as 7-ell -iS that of the oystermen, and that authority should be vested -."rith the Conservation Department to determine, after competent survey, whethef a given bottom is barren and consequently subject to Irj'^sir.g.

There is also in T^arylind a lack of any spacific re- quirement imposed on the lessees to secure the execution of the legal provisions that leased areas must be used only for oyster planting -nd cultivation. The applicant for ■ le^se must state th-.t the desired ground must be used for th t purpose. Once secured, however, the Imd m.ay or may not be used for thit purpose. In order to insure the full and proper use of the lands m-'.de -vdl^ble to private interests for oyster culture, the St-te should h'vo discretion Ty po7;ers to impose certain re- strictions upon the lessees, -^nd - failure to comply with the official regulations should result in the cancellation of the le^se.

-34-

CHaPTEH 7 ADDED AREA FOR LEASING

Change in State's fundamental oyster policy deemed essential - Long time planning for the management of renewable resources of a commercial type should aim not only to restore and enhance the industries involved, but the industries themselves ultimately should bear the expense of the restora- tion and maintenance to have conservation vrark become self-supporting. To call upon the State Treasury annually for grants to "save the oyster indus- try" by shell planting or other questionable methods v;hen that industry re- fuses to save itself by cooperative activity and the application of princi- ples v/orking successfully in other states virhere this type of business thrives, is to continue a policy v;hich admittedlj'^ has been of questionable value to date and has a highly uncertain future. Maryland has spent millions of dollars in its attempt to develop its oyster resources, but the results so far have been negative. This fact alone justifies a change in methods. A liberal policy should be embraced for the leasing of some of the areas impar- tially surveyed and found to be barren and Tfdthout immediate possibilities for development through shell planting.

Maryland is outstanding among the States v/hich produce the bulk of the country's oyster supply in not permitting private capital and business methods to share in oyster production through the development of grounds that are non-productive and v;ithout reasonable prospect of develop- ment by public means.

Should Maryland be dependent \iooxi other States for her supply of large oysters? - As the result of a survey made by this Committee in the houses of eleven reputable oyster concerns in Baltimore, Cambridge and Cris- field, it was ascertained that the State's dealers are almost entirely de- pendent upon other states for the supply of "Counts" they distribute. Three of the houses studied shucked only "Standards", using their larger oysters to "bring up the count". It v/as estimated that 89 per cent of the supply of large oysters shipped from Maryland, as Chesapeake stock, were grovm out-of-

-35- state and that the State's dealers, to hold the trade built on the fine quality of the local product years ago, now find it necessary to truck oysters from points as far distant as Long Island Sound. In this av/kward situation it is generally agreed that fine large oysters can be grovTn abundantly v/ithin easy reach of the dealers and to their benefit as v/ell as to the benefit of the many watermen who would be hired to plant, catch, handle, deliver, and shuck the supply.

Present ^.easing policy untenable - P-laryland ' s present policy for the leasing of oyster grounds is founded upon reasoning that is untenable. In the main, it permits private control of those bottoms upon v;hich oysters have never grown and v;hich, because of their consistency and general physical condition, offer minimum prospects of development. Many efforts have been made and much money has been spent in an effort to produce results on such bottoms, and the history of the industry shows repeated failures in such at- tempts. In rare cases it has happened that a lessee in the lower Bay has been able to acquire grounds that were developable. The success of private plant- ing of oysters on such grounds adds to the evidence v/hich clearly points to the necessity of a change in the laws that vdll permit the leasing of some of the barren areas fit for development. At the head of the Patuxent, in the lower reaches of the Wicomico and Nanticoke and in the Pocomoke Flats section leasing of limited areas has gone far to stabilize production in a local way. In such localities employment is more certain and the watermen appreciate the added opportunity for emplo;;Tnent. Oysters from such beds are of the best quality now produced in the State,

High productivity of leased areas under proper management - The Conservation Department's records, with 8,365 acres under lease in 1934, indicate that Maryland has embraced a substantial policy for leasing oyster bottoms. TJhen these figures are compared with those of New Jersey, to cite an instance, the failure of the policy is apparent. New Jersey, v/ith ap-

-36- proxirtif.tely 35,000 acres uiir'.or len-se, ..iroc'uccs in r normal year over

2,000,000 bushels of market oysters, iiruissisted by natural Lars. Maryland

with about 265,000 acres of public beds and over 8,000 acres of leased area

produces about the saJTie quantity.

With the exce^^tion of the snail acreacfe leased, referred to in the precedin.; parafiraph, the entire holdings Tinder private control are devoted either to riparian interests or to ;"urposes of "laying down" oysters, that is, they are used by individuals for storage purposes when they desire to carry the oysters some days before narketinj-: them. On the decided- ly greater part of privately held bottoms seed oysters can neither be secured nor -Trovm to matiirity. Such bottoms are utterly unsuited for oyster culture.

Unusually barren "oyster bars" available for leasinri; - It is generally agreed among the dredgers th>at the section of the Bay off Calvert Coujity has been extremely depleted and that the bottoms here are not sufficiently productive of oysters to Justify dredginj: operations. The water in this section is too deep to permit satisfactory tongincV operations. Thus that lar^ie group of oystermon employed at ton.jin;: would not be affected by its management. The loading dredge boat operators have suggested that much of this section be set aside for purposes of lea.sing so that the value of this type of conservation v/ork may ie determined. It should be recalled in this connection that private development must, in harvesting the crop in deep water, use dredges, boats and men thus malcing for added employment in this class of craft and oystermen. In addition to the common experience of the dredgers, observations especially directed to the end of determining the extent of dredging operations in the Ca.lvert Section shov; that it has drop^jed into disuse. Using If.boratory equipment and facilities, along with an equipped commercial dredge boat, t-.r. thorough,iOing efforts v/ere made to determine the productivity of th*. tiiree main bars in the section - Flag Pond, Governor's Pain and Dares'. Pulling heavy dredges for p. minimum of three-eighths of a mile oysters were taken, as indicated in the following

-		Estimated distance
)aY	Place Governor' s Run	of haul
11	Three-eighths mile.
11	II tl	One-half mile.
11	II 11	Three-eighths mile-
11	II II	One-half mile.
11	Flag Pond	Three eighths mile.

11	II
12	Dare
12	II
12	II

-57- table, in such gmall quantities that, for sake of simplicity, they are re- corded numerically rather than by fractions of bushels. Resul^tsof test-dredging off Calvert Shore. November. 1954;

Number and quality of oysters taken

Seven oysters, very large

Nine oysters, very large.

Two large oysters.

Eleven very large oysters.

Twelve oysters. Five of them small.

11 " " One-half mile. Twenty-six oysters. About

half of them large.

" " " Tv>renty-one oysters, mixed size.

" " " Thirty-seven oysters, mixed

size.

" " " Thirty- tv;o oysters, mixed size.

Three-eighths mile. Twenty oysters, nine of them

large .

Restoration of certain barren bars through leasing - From the table it becomes apparent that on Governor's Run bar oysters have be- come so depleted that it is nov; difficult to find even representatives of the abundant supply of superior oysters that cemo from the same area 50 years ago. Governor's Run bar is the most completely exhausted area in the section. Hov/ever, the neighboring bars, as indicated in the table, are barely in better shape. A haul of the dredge for the same distance as one of these areas, under production conditions would have filled it completely to yield three or four bushels of oysters. To allow these fine beds to lie fallow when capital and private management wait to develop them, is to waste heritage. During the years of 1918 and 1919 the Conservation Commission srxpended a sum in excess of )ip48,000 in an effort to restore the Governor's Run bar through the planting of shells and seed from other bars. The policy v/as introduced by practical oystermen and put into effect by a

-38- very substmritial and experienced leader of that r-^roup. The failure, with the loss of the investment, was conplete. More than thisi Repeated efforts by the Marine Laboratory to secure catch on these areas have failed accord- ing to published reports of the Conservation Department. There is no in- dication that these beds will restore ti.emselves naturally, that shell plant- im- will benefit then in the least or that money rationally spent v/ill re- habilitate them to a reasonable extent. Essentially this whole section is suited to private plant inf;.

Recom:..ended plan to be self- gupportin^: - It is estimated in this Plan that the Calvert-Dorchester section, if made subject to leas- in^j, would be made sufficiently productive in a ten year period to carry the entire burden of conserva,tion in Maryland, that is, the burden of re- habilitation, not of just maintaining soraethin=i of a supply of oysters. With a five cent production ta:'C placed on planters, in addition to the ren- tal fee of one dollar per year, and the a.nticipated production level of 1,750,000 bushels is reached by 1945, the State would be relieved entirely of appropria.tions, for the inoxime from this source v/ould more than meet the iTuining expenses of the adjninistration. It v/ould, in addition to pur- chasing the 40 per cent of seed grown on public beds, thereby paying for the transplanting^ of seed to public beds, contribute an annual re»»nue to the State of some $75,000. Such an income in addition to that derived from present and anticipated leasing a,ctivities elsewhere, combined with fees, the present bushel ta:-:, shell tax, etc. v/ould if kept in effect contribute substantial sums each year to the State's ijeneral fuiids. Planters welcome the opportunity to operate on v/orthv/hile areas that may be made available to them under the conditions outlined.

-39-

CHAPTER 8

ADDITIONAL PO\;£RS FOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Inflexible la\.'S often reduce effectiveness of Conservation efforts - An examination of i\ilaryland ' s conservation laws 7d.ll reveal a large body of various regulations governing the commercial fishery operations of the State. While certain of these laws are basic in character, providing for the creation of the Conservation Commission, the enumeration of its powers and duties, licensing provisions, the imposition of fines and penal- ties, others consist primarily of v;hat might be termed administrative rules and regulations such as the season of capture, type of equipment to be em- ployed, size limits, et cetera. Except in comparatively few instances is the Conservation Commission empowered to use discretionary judgment in the formation of such administrative policies, v/hich are now specifically pro- vided for by law.

The present conservation lavfs of the State- have doubtless ^een enacted vdth the best of intentions on the part of the legislature, but often they are quite ineffective in coping vdth emergency situations, and frequently operate against the public interest. The situation is due pri- marily to the fact that the Legislature normally convenes only once in every two years, whereas practical situations are constantly arising which require immediate action if the interests of conservation are to be served. By the time legislative action is secured it frequently happens that a resource in a particular locality has either been destroyed or so materially impaired that the passage of remedial laws is of comparatively little effectiveness.

Need for additional discretionary powers of Conservation authorities - If the present conservation laws which are strictly adminis- trative in character should be amended to vest in the Conservation authori- ties discretionary pov/ers in regard to seasons of capture, methods and equipment to be employed, the opening and closing of certain areas for public fishing, et cetera, the production and conservation of oua: marine

j^:x::.-^.^:

w^ iw,-

i ■-^ '.A..',-',i -i'".'--.

.'.hi' ■:ii!i-:i<,-\i i-.i ^5V,^.■

;^:.^»^.

■:v"G'

.;>:j S:-.^: -.Jf:

■> :.■!>";•

jVO"'*- "^ ■'-"'*'* i'"'

il iv

.■:i,av •■

-40-

resources would be ri.ateria.lly incrensed.

In undertakiri;-: a troad xerogram of rehabilitation of Mary- land's oyster industry, it would stem advisable that the Conservation De- partment be r,-iven -greater discretionary powers than it nov/ possesses. Any plan to restore effectively the depleted oyster bars of Maryland should include flexible provision for reejolatin,: the proper use of the areass V7hich the State is atteraptin,^ to reliabilitate. In other \7ords, the areas where seed oysters or shells are planted should remain undist-orbed for suf- ficient time to enable the bars to become adequately productive before ba- ing thrown open to the public; and where certain areas are being so intense- ively fished that their productivity is threatened, the Commission 3hould have the power to prohibit fishin.-; on such areas before they become seri- ously depleted. The Commission should also Ij^.ve power to designate the par- ticular areas that are most suitable for development. Regulations governing the type of equipment to be used in public fishinf^ operation should also come under the discretionary authority of the Conservation Department.

Since Conservation officials are in day-to-day contact with the actual conditions over a long i^eriod of years, they are generally in a better position to jud.ge as to the wisdom of adoptin:'; specific regu- latory measures than the members of t?.e Legislature or ajiy other official body would be.

The lack of discretionary powers for permitting the Con- servation Department to determine officially v/hether a given oyster bar is productive or barren has been partially responsible for the slow and lim- ited development of private culture in this State.

1

CHAPTER 9.

LEASIITa OF TH3 SEASIDE AREAS III TORCESTER COUIITY

Fempjient Ocepji City Inlet H-^.s :!ado O.Tstor Culture Possil)le Near Seaside Areas. - Legislation was enacted in 1933 wherety leasing of the najor portions of the oyster oottons in TTorcester County was made possible. It -as specified in the lav/ that lea^in^ should begin when it had become established by the Conservation Department that the Ocea.n City Inlet, cut through the beach by the August, 1933, storm, had been made permanent by certain State funds made available for the purpose. The Inlet is now considered p.s permanent by the engineers and the construc- tion agencies in charge of the work. Tlie Isle of Wight Bay, the Sine- puxont Bay, and the upper reaches of the Chincoteag'J.e Bay, formerly too fresh to sunport oyster life, are now sufficiently s?It (Minimum salinity of I.OCIO, or the froshest waters are saltier than that in the region of Ceda^r Point) to maks possible the culti^'ation of a fins quality of oyster. The physical and biological features of the wat^-)r, according to a recent survey of the Biological Laboratory, are likewise encouraging. The water- men of this co-onty, v/ith the exception of a snail area, are .-ijixious to take up the holdings and many axiplications for ground have been made. There are no natural or public oyster beds in Worcester County.

Adverse Effects of Inlet on Certa.i"i Sections - In the lower region of the Chincoteague Bay thure is interest in the proposed leasing, but, due to recent failure of thsir o^'ster beds, the v/atermen are fep.rful thp.t the Inlet ma/ have set up nev; conditions. It is a fact established by biologists (See 1934 Annual Report, Conservation Department) that the inlet has done some injury to oyster farming in the lower section of the Chincotoaguc Bay, that is, around Girdletree, Box Iron pjid Stockton. In these sections oyster farming has been the practice since the earliest days of the industry in America and normally growth and fall fattening arc assured. Since the opening of the Inlet oyster growth has been

groatly arrested PJid tho condition of the oysters on qiiite a fev? "beds tip.s rendered then ■'onfit for marketing. While considerable promise is held oat to those v7ho wish to start oyster planting in the recently salted areas, it is not r^'conncndod in the Plan that leasing "be encouraged in the old regions of production for the present. In the last named, salt is present in such concentrations as to he reassuring from that angle, a mininram density of 1.0011 hcing recorded. The difficulty scons to he in the tidal effects v":uo to tho location of the bods bctv.'een tv/o inlets. An imnediato trouble is found in the unusually heavy attack on the oysters by the Boring Sponge, apparently a secondary source of trouble. However, before definite conclusions may bo dravm in this connection further obser- vations must be nade . In actual practice the old established oyster areas arc far below their standard of production and the problem of leasing them requires further understanding before action is taken.

Seaside Areas for Immediate Leasing - TOiile it is recommend- ed in this Plan thr't the no'^ly created oyster beds in the upper reaches of Worcester County waters be leased forthv/ith it is felt that below a line drawn from Public Landing to Brol^xin Marshes (Robins' Marsh) and thence eastward to the Beach, leasing should not be forced upon the pl.anters at this time. The chief reasons are, in review: (l) The Inlet apparently has created a condition that has adversely affected the oyster beds. (?) The beds now are heavily seeded and it v/ill bo necessary to move the oysters on then, to ne',v bods unlers local conf.i tions chpjige -.•ithin a reasonable period. (3) Leasing is expensive, cs^iocially v/hcre the hold.ings consist of a number of small areas, as is the case in the section in question. (4) To lease the beds at this tine would nake it necessary for the planters in question to put up considerable nonoy just at a time when they are ex- periencing most trying tines ,and in ma,ny cases -.Then they are unable to do

80.

-43-

CHAPTEli 10 CMB RESOURCES

Relationship betvjoen the life cycle of the blue crah and the Chesapeake Bay waters of Marvlc^nd and Virginia - The blue crab spends a part of its life in Virginia waters and pr.rt in Maryland waters. Spawning takes place in the lower regions of the Bay, v.dthin the territory limits of Virginia. The young crabs, after hatching, gradually migrate northward to Maryland v/aters where full maturity is reached and mating takes place. After mating, the female crabs migrate to the lov/er portions of the Bay for spawning, while the male crabs usually remain in Maryland waters. From this brief analysis of the migratory character of the life of the blue crab, it v;ould appear that the supply of crabs in Ii/laryland is dependent upon the stock in Virginia waters, while the supply in the latter State is closely associated with the stock in Maryland waters. In view of this inter- dependent situation, it is important that complete cooperation should exist between these two States in regard to the protection and conservation of their crab resources.

Hpyj fishing practices in Virginia are affecting the crab supply - The volume of Maryland's crab production has not always obtained the high levels of recent years. The adverse conditions affecting the industries for some period prior to 1927 were of such a character as to actually threaten its existence. From the data presented in Table 11, it vdll be noted that the volume of Marj'-land' s crab production in 1920 was less than one-half of that for 1904.

The great decrease in the crab supply was due largely to the taking of large quantities of sponge-bearing crabs principally from Virginia v;aters. This practice obviously destroyed the opportunity

-44-

for the devclopnent of millions of potentiil young cr-.bs. Confronted v/ith 1 serious cnb ^hort-(?e, the Legislature of Virginiri in 1925 &n"cted Inips m'^.king it illeg-il to capture the sponge-bc^ring cnb at any time. !i!aryland hnd r.lre-Ady enncted similar l-iVS. ^ irnrked increase in the supply v.ns noticed -Imost imediately tfter the p-^ss-^ge of such legisla- tion; :;nd the production of cr-'bs in !'?rylind increased from 9,646,361 pounds in 1925 to a pe-k of 35,938,783 pounds in 1930.

From these figures it is easy to observe the influence of the pyotective legislation on increasing the crab supply. In n com- paratively short period the major T)roblen effecting the industry had shift- ed from "n in'^dequ<ate supply to an apparent overabundance. Tl'is change occurred so r-,pidly that the industrj'- ras lanable to adjust itself properly to the ncvv conditions; that is, th'^ crab packers as a whole failed to develop new m^jckets for ibsorbing the increased supply. As a result of the glutted conditions in the prinary n-Tkets, crab prices suffered r. serious decline. To offset their vanishing profits, caused by lov;er prices, producers began to further incre-'se production, thereby bringing virtual chaos to the industry's m'^rketing mech-nism.

In an effort to relieve this tense situation, the legis- lature of Virginia in 1932 repe-le'l its protective legislation by enact- ing lav^s th'-t Tould pc-mit the taking of sponge crabs from the vaters of the State at any ti"ie from "pril 1 to Jine 30 inclusive. IfThile protests were made by "arylnnd and other interests, the pressure brought to bear in Virgin! I 7;"s apparently so great tmt the Governor approved these measures. It '/:as contended by those supporting such legislation th'^t the supply of crabs T/ould not be mnterially diminished, and th't the disastrous situation prior to 1927 vould not again be repeated.

It is, of course, too early to determine the full effects of Virginia';- unfavorable legislative action, but is is significant to

-45-

note from tible 11 that "iryl'>nl':3 cr-'.b production decre^iied from r>. peqk of 36,938,783 pounds in 1930 to 30,097,129 pounds in 1933. V/hile official figures covering the opcr-itions for 1934 are no^t -ivailible, it has been reported th-'.t the volume of production h.':'.d diminished considerably in com- parison v;ith th^t for other recent yenrs.

Full cooperation should be given to Virginia in -"n effort to h^ve her reemct the l;iv/ protecting the sponge- cr^.b, ind at the same time certain protective legislation should be enacted in Ilaryland to protect the female crab when migrating to Virginia raters during the fall months.

Ho~ fishing operatior.3 in !^!aryland are affecting the supply of cr-.bs and crab meat - As previously pointed out, the female crab, after the mating period, migr-ites to the lovijr sections of the Bay. Tnis migration is particularly noticeable during the fall months, especially October ?nd November. .It that time the female crabs travel in large schools, rhich rr-kes them particularly subject to capture in sizable quantities. Ir-ismuch as one female cr-'b 7,'ill lay about about 1,750,000 eggs, it is apparent thit the taking of - large qu:lntity of such crabs will considerably reduce the potential number of young to be hatched the folloFing summer.

,\t the 1933 session of Maryland's legislature the length of the season for taking cr^.bs was extended to include t::ie month of November, or the period during which female crabs migrate to Virginia in large schools. If the crabbing season is shortened to incliide only the period from May 1 to October 31 inclusive, a considerable expansion of the cr.ib supply 7;ould de- velop; that is, " much larger number of potential egg-laying cr-.bs would be enabled to re-ch the spav/ning grounds. It i3 "Iso very probable that such action on the aart of I.I.:ryland might be instrumental in securing the co- operation of Virginia in having that State reen-^ct laws to prohibit the capture of sponge crabs at any time.

-46-

Iharing this period of diminishing crab resources, it is im- portant that every effort should be made to conserve the present sypply. It should be pointed out that crabs increase in size only through the molting process (shedding the shell) and that the taking of immature crabs reduces potential proauction. That is, if the smaller crabs were allowed to remain in the v/ater for sufficient time to obtain maturity, they being of larger size would produce a greater volume for the same effort. Since the larger portion of male hard crabs are found in Maryland water, increas- ing the legal minimum size for taking male hard crabs would materially benefit local fishermen. The present legal minimum for taking of hard crabs is five inches, and since such crabs are immature, it is recommended that the minimum limit be increased to five and one-half inches, where full maturity is attained.

Exemption of Worcester County - In view of the fact that conditions in V/orcester County differ materially from those of the Chesa- peake Bay sections, the recommendations for amending the present crab legislation should not apply to that coionty.

-47-

CHaP^LR 11 COOPEIUTION V.IT H VIRGINIA

Conservation of Chesapeake Day resources is essentially an interstate matter involving Maryland and Virginia. The oyster industry of America is now in a destructive slump rd-thout relief in sight. The re- sponsibility for these conditions largely rests upon the oystermen of the two States named. Inferior stock, absence of established standards of quality and size, obsolete business methods, and lack of cooperation v/ithin the industry at large to effect necessary reforms, are the outstanding characteristics. The crab industry, largely confined to the Chesapeake Bay also repeatedly suffers from the same unfavorable conditions. Be- cause of the marked need of complete cooperation a,nd understanding on the part of the tv;o States, it is recommended that the Governor of Maryland initiate a conference Of the Governors of the two States, their conserva- tion officials, and representatives of the crab and oyster industries, in order that more satisfactory conditions of cooperation may be established for the seafood industries.

-48-

CHAFTER 12.

FJRTHSR STUDIES

Studies nado on conservation nethods and results to date have not been sufficiently conplete to justify concrete rcconmenda- tions on three vital points affecting l>Jn,ryland ' s natural resources. It is felt by the Connittee on Conservation that further study should "bo given to the conditions enune rated below:

1. Present studies point strongly to the desirability of having all agencies in charge of the State's resources, such as forests, game, fish, oysters, and mineral resources, brought into closer relationship, with their vjork more conpletely coordinated. Four distinct State de- partments, located in four different institutions, .and working independ- ently, now carry on the v/ork of conservation.

2. Law enforcement in conservation v;ork hp.s in a. large measure failed, especially in the np,rine fisheries. Special attention should be directed to the possibilities of reorganizing and consolidating all conservation enforcement agencies into one constabulary, with a head and personnel equipped for the work at hand rather than for special knowledge of conservation affairs. Motor vehicle officers and other such state agencies might well be included in such a plan.

3. The funds accruing to the Conservation Department from fees, licenses, rentals, etc., varying from year to year as they do, according to the fluctuations of nature, should not be lost at the end of the fiscal year as at present. Such monies should remain to the credit

of the Department in order that its work may be carried on uninterrupt- edly in lean as well as in rich years.

i

-49-

STATISTIChL iiPPENDIX

-50-

TABLE 1

C^ivlF/vRISON OF THE VOLUtJE 01'' VihRKET OYSTERS PRODUCED IN MAilYLiJTO

WITH THAT FQH THE aTLjjA'TIC hND GULF STATES aS A \;HOLE.

FOR Various years from isbo to 1952.*

BUSHELS

1,950,339 12,177,821

2,339,207 11,756,405

2,307,563 14,977,292

2,534,719 15,202,390

Atlantic and Year Maryland Gulf States

@ 1932

@ 1931

@ 1930

1929

1924-1928 4,250,960 17,669,056

1918-1921 4,547,471 17,018,854

1910-1912 5,497,471 24,736,113

1908 5,830,000 25,173,000

1901-1902 5,685,561 25,310,921

1897-1898 7,254,934 24,721,644

1890-1892 10,450,087 26,671,155

1888 8,531,658 21,145,120

1887 8,148,217 19,624,243

1880 10,600,000 22,329,174

"**" General statistics for the oyster fisheries have not always been collected ty the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries simuttareiously for all the States, but during the period of canvass statistics v/ere col- lected each year for certain States, and the production shoViH for a particular period has been taken as an average year. Of the data shown above, the periods 1890-1892, 1897-1898, 1901-1902, 1910-1912, 1918-1921, and 1924-1928, are taken by the Bureau of Fisheries to shov/ production for an average year. Until 1901 no consistent or uniform effort v/as made to separate market and seed oysters. The production figures that are shov.n for years previ- ous to that date, therefore, undoubtedly include some seed oysters.

© Prior to 1930 it was the uniform practice of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries to consider one bushel of oysters in the shell as the equivalent of seven pounds of meat; since that time, however, a separate conversion factor has been used for each State in the different years.

PER CENT	DISTRIBUTION
Marvland	Other Atlantic and Gulf States
16.0		84.0
19.9		80.1
15.4		84.6
16.7		83.3
24.1		75.9
26.7		73.3
22.2		77.8
23.2		76.8
22.5		77.5
29.3		70.7
39.2		60.8
40.3		59.7
41.5		58.5
47.5		52.5

Authority: Various reports of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries.

-51-

T^IPLE 2

.tPPAHE^^T P"5:R C PIT" COVorTTIO?' OF 0^''3'r"^3 T;^ TiF; U^'TTH) STATES: BY

DE":aD"^3,

13 -C TC 1?30

Year	Population	Year	Cyst or Production (Pounds )	Per Cfipita Consurintion (Po-,xnds )
1950	122,775,046	1930	86,255,510	0.70
1920	105 , 710 , 620	1918-1921	119,131,978	1.13
1910	91,972,266	1910-1912	173,152,784	1.88
19C0	75,994,575	1901-1902	176,894,085	2.33
1890	62,947,714	1890-1-392	135,443,795	2.95
1380	50,155,733	1830	155,059,968	3.09

Authority: Population-- Reports of the U. 3. Bureau of the Census;

Oyster Production — Reports of the U.S. Burenu of Fisheries,

ThBLE 5

LOillPARISpN_OF TrIF;„VpLyim_OF_^KE LiARXET-QYSTT^R PRODUCTION IN THJrVf'^tJGliS .;Xiyj^iIG"A]"'il GULV STaTES,' f Ch." LH80 "i^lD 1952 #

Areas and States

Production (Bushols)

1952

1Q80

@

Percentage Distribution .

1952

1880

Total Atlantic and Gulf States

NaT? England States Ife.sf5achu setts Rliode Island Connecticut

Middle Atlantic States New York New Jersey Delaware

Chesapeake Bay States Maryland Virginia

South Atlantic States North Carolina South Carolina Gaorgia Florida

Gulf States Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas

12,177,821

1,118,224

42,618

613,919

461,687

1,385,521

862,322

953, G34

69,565

4,239,778 1,950,339 2,289,439

1,278,354 210,395 507,950 103,411 456,598

5,656,144 368,007

2,304,621 719,338 194,178

22,529,174

555,650

56,000

165,200

356,450

3,496,050

1,045,500

1,975,000

500,000

17,437,320

10,600,000

6,837,520

358,600

170,000

50,000

70,000

78,600

491,554 104,500

25,000 295,000

67,054

100.0

100.0

9.2	2.4
0.4	0.2
5.0	0.7
S.8	1.5
15.5	15.7
7.1	4.7
7.8	8.8
0.6	1.3
34.8	78.1
16.0	47.5
18.0	30.6
10.5	1.7
1.7	0.8
4.2	0.2
0.8	0.5
3.8	0.4
30.0	2.2
2.9	0.5
19.6	0.1
5.9	1.3
1.6	0.3

# Until 1901 no consistent or uniform effort was made to separate the statistics for market and seed oysters. The production figures for 1880, therefore, undoubtedly include some seed oysters.

@ The total for the Mddle Jitlantic States in 1880 include a production for Pennsylvania of 177,750 bushels, or 0.8 per cent of the total for the Atlantic and Gulf States. The production in this State for 1950 is included in the total for New Jersey and Delr.v/are.

Authority: Computed from various reports of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries.

-53-

TRYM) V '^HF VOI^'^T yp VA.Ui: QV :'".\T'"L'x^'D'.": T'TTAJ, OYSTER PRODUCTION, FG^ Y'-.RTy^ YFARo FR'^T loPO TO 19^3, ^' CtUSIVE

Year Bushels Value Year Bushels Value

1953 1,778,506 $ 7B3,197 1904 4,429,550 S 2,417,674

1932 1,957,332 942,699 1901 5,635,551 3,031,513

1931 2,342,181 1,474,657 1397 7,254,934 2,?35,202

1930 2,345,244 2,031,044 1391 9,345,058 5,295,366

1929 2,562,399 2,454,959 1390 10,450,037 4,354,745

1925 4,252,358 3,256,272 1838 8,531,653 2,877,290

1920 4, 547, 471 2,291,120 13S7 3,143,217 2,633,435

1912 5,510,421 2,127,759 13S0 10,600,000 4,930,476

1908 ^',232,000 2,228,000

Authority: Statistics for 1933 cormuted fror. tae 12th Annu-^l Report of the T'aryland Conaervatinn Department, while t.'iose for the other years shov;n vjere obtained from various reports of the U. 3. B-ureau of Fisheries.

-54-

?".BLi; 5.

I'5S"'tD J^' "^R'^L'.'Tj, for r-IE ^,03 liP> TO l''o3, I''^CUT3r/E

Year Tonger Scnper Dredger Packer

1916 7,299 730 445 269

1917 5,562 378 309 194

1918 3,688 402 222 142

1919 5,232 407 322 267

1920 5,439 455 324 271

1921 6,230 533 261 272

1922 5,543 460 295 283

1923 5,396 420 362 268

1924 5,776 339 299 251

1925 5,156 406 265 207 l';26 4,808 291 343 219

1927 4,374 279 282 206

1928 4,741 270 259 201

1929 4,593 223 188 186

1930 4,901 215 204 182 1951 5,483 164 87 180 1932 4,777 121 87 167 11-33 4,163 113 62 165

Authority; ^Ynnurl Reports of Maryland Conservation Department.

■55-

TIBLE 5.

CO"?ARISO"T cF THE V '.UT OF THE I^CD"CTTO"' OF CAn^D OYGTTnS IV. "ARITM.D •'•IT:!!!!' T ?0^ TU" CQ'"'"n^'' \3 A "•HOLE FO^ T^iE YFAR3 1921 TO lv32, I-'CLmy^.

vear	•'iryl'^nd
1932	#
1931	fr
1930	@
1929	$193,266
1928	233,218
1927	126,972
1926	171,640
1925	703,689
1924	468,055
1923	606,973
1922	479,572
1921	778,435

^^nited States :^], 007, 624 965,525 1,836,862 2,732,478 2,760,576 2,367,949 2,026,569 3,721,159 2,478,044 2,720,073 .-, , ■xi^3 , 616 2,179,271

Per cent

■%

7.1

8.4

5.4

3.5 18.9 18.9 22.3 19.8 35.7

# No production reported for "eryland.

3 Data not available separately for ''aryland. Values for North

Carolina and ''arylnnd conbined amounted to ^-•145,201.

Authority: Various rertorts of the tt. 3, Bureau of Fisheries.

-56-

TABLE 7

THE AVERAGE ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF LIARKET OYSTERS

IN THE ATLANTIC AND GULF STATES.

CLi'.SSIFIED ACCORDING TO PRIVATE AiW PUBLIC BEDS.

FOR THE PERIOD 1929 TO 1952. INCLUSIVE^

Areas and States

Total Production (Bushels)

Private

Beds (gu.shglp)

Public

Beds

(Bushels).

Per cent Private Beds

Per cent

Public

Beds

Total Atlantic and Gulf States

13,527,980 6,415,860 7,112,120 47.4

52.6

Nev/ England States Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut

938,690

46,790

431,720

460,190

930,940

46,470

430,930

453,550

7,750 320 790

6,640

99.2 99.3 99.8 98.6

0.8 0.7 0.2 1.4

Middle Atlantic States 2,674,670 2,607,100 67,580 97.5 2.5

New York 1,113,060 1,091,220 21,840 98.0 2.0

New Jersey 1,508,440 1,480,730 27,710 98.2 1.8

Delaware 53,170 35,150 18,020 66.1 33.9

Chesapeake Bay States 4,738,250

IJIaryland 2,282,960

Virginia 2,455,290

South Atlantic States 1,489,600

North Carolina 346,370

South Carolina 592,960

Georgia 66,900

Florida 483,370

Gulf States 3,686,770

Alabama 201,370

Mississippi 2,243,010

Louisiana 994,880

Texas 247,500

1,722,720

207,780

1,514,940

286,330 1,080

168,940 57,130 59,180

868,770 9,750 2,300

853,980 2,740

3,015,530

2,075,180

940,350

1,203,270

345,290

424,020

9,760

424,190

2,818,000 191,610

2,240,710 140,910 244, 760

36.4

9.1

61.7

19.2 0.3 28.5 85.4 12.2

23.6

4.8

0.1

85.8

1.1

63.6 90.9 38.3

80.8 99.7 71.5 14.6 87.8

76.4 95.2 99.9 14.2 98.9

* In a few instances the totals are not equal to the figures shown. This difference is due to rounding out the figures T/hen computing the averages. In no case, however, does the difference exceed 10 bushels.

Authority: Computed from various reports of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries.

-57- T\BL5 8.

TIIE V'-X'T OF T^IE IYER .OE 'M-V'L PRODUCTION OF y'J{KE7 07STaR3

IN THE -PLM-rrTC AM) GULF oTATES,

CL'.33IFIZD •■CCORDI-'G TO PRIV'.TE '■-ND P13LIC BED3,

FOP TPE PE.-iTGD 1029 TO 1952, IJC^r^'^YZ *

				Per cent	Per cent
		Private	Public	Private	Public
Areas and States	Total	Beds	Beds	Beds	Beds
Total \tlantic :ir.d
Sulf States	|;9,338,690	1^5,370,510	■'2,968,080	58.2	31.8
New England States "	1,£ALS570	1,232,000	11,570	99.1	0.9
T.Iassachusatts	1-6,010	145,390	530	99.6	0.4
Rhode Island	622,920	621,240	1 , 690	99.7	0.3
Connocticut	47'L,o3C	455,380	9,250	96.1	1.9
Middle Atlantic States	3,527,5'.0	3,442,230	85,410	97.5	2.4
Mew York	1,554,350	1,529,230	3[),430	97.7	2.3
New Jersey-	1,921,050	1, ="35, 270	35,770	99.1	1.9
Delaware	44,940	27,730	14,210	65.1	33.9
Chesapeake Bay \rca	3,410,950	1,286,730	2,132,230	37.6	62.4
!'aryland	1,734,900	183,530	1,545,270	10.9	89.1
Virginia	1,6^4,060	1,093,100	585,950	55.2	34.8
South Atlantic States	384,050	5 0,800	328,250	li.5	85.5
North Carolina	135,020	790	135,230	0.5	99.4
South Carolina	92,840	30,600	6:;, 230	33.0	67.0
Georgia	13,370	11,200	2,530	80.7	19.3
Florida	141,320	13,210	128,110	9.3	90.7
Gulf States	764,460	353,840	410,620	45,3	53.7
Alabama	25,350	3,950	21,900	15.3	84.7
Mississippi	280,050	720	279,330	0.3	99.7
Louisiana	373,910	345 , 550	27,360	92.7	7.3
Texas	84,560	2,630	82,030	3.1	96.9

* In 3 fcv instances the totals nro not equal to the fig'ares shown. This difference is due to rounding out the figures when computing the averages. In no case, however, does the difference exceed "JlO.CO.

Authority: Computed fro:i V3riou3 reports of the U. 3. B'oreau of Fisheries,

.58-

T\BIE 9.

TFIE •■VERV:ri: MXyjF. P7R BUS:rEL OF rViRKET 0^'"3TERS TuvrT: FROV PRIV.T" /.'CD P^jBLIC BI:D3 OF T:IF '.TL-J-^TIC \rTD GIJLT? ST.'T^S, FOR THE PIRIOD 1':'29 TO 1332, piGLUSI"'/^

Areas and States

Tot^l

Private

Public

Total Atlantic und

Gulf States

$0.69

^0.99

^!;0.42

New England States

1.52

1.32

1.49

Massachusetts @ Rhode Island @ Connecti cut

3.12 1.44

1.03

3.13 1.44 1.04

1.97 2.14 1.39

Middle Atlantic States

1.32

1.32

1.26

@ New York @ New Jersey Delaviare

1.-51 1.27 0.79

1.40 1.27

0.79

1.62 1.29 0.79

Chesapeake Bay States

0.72

0.75

0.71

@ Maryland © Virginia

0.76

0.69

0.91 0.72

0.75 0.62

South Atlantic States

0.26

0.19

0.27

North Carolina © South Carolina

Georgia @ Florida

0.39 0.16 C.21 0.29

0.73 0.18 0.2C

0.22

0.39 C.15 0.27

0.30

Gulf States

0.20

0.41

0.14

Alabama ® Mississippi O Louisiana

Texas

0.13 0.13 0.38 0.34

0.41 0.31 0.41 0.96

0.11

0.13 0.19

0.34

3tTt3S producing an average of over 400,000 bushels of oysters per year during the period 1929-1932, inclusive.

Authority: Comtjuted from the figures presented in fables 7 and 8

1

-59- TABLE 10

The Quantity and Value of Oysters Fresh-Shucked in the Atlantic and Gulf States. Together v.lth the Average Value per Gallon. for the Years 1950 and 1951 <t x

Arfifli^ '^"d States

Total Atlantic and Gulf States

1951

Gallons

Value

1950 #

Gallon!

Value

Average

Value

per Gallon

1951 1950

5,504,240 ^7,950,595 5,419,677 ^9,888,352 $1.50 $1.82

Nev/ England States	513,252	1,151,288	573,886	1,443,638	2.20	2.52
Massachusetts	2,185	6,523	2,279	6,505	2.89	2.77
Rhode Island	307,235	715,542	345,310	873,659	2.35	2.53
Connecticut	203,854	409,423	226,297	565,674	2.01	2.49
Middle Atlantic States	980,636	2,021,176	875,701	2,036,148	2.06	2.33
New York	295,550	697,287	252,192	661,816	2.36	2.62
New Jersey-	448,724	795,169	439,824	952,651	1.77	2.17
Delaware	77, 750	132,488	78,080	155,582	1.70	1.97
* Pennsylvania	158,612	396,232	105,605	268,097	2.50	2.59
Chesapeake Bay States	3,084,964	3,981,770	3,220,119	5,298,165	1.29	1.65
Maryland	1,858,114	2,181,151	1,855,285	2,958,141	1.17	1.61
Virginia	1,226,850	1,800,659	1,384,836	2,540,024	1.47	1.69
South Atlantic States	326,700	556,559	@	@	1.09	©
North Carolina	134,308	125,470	112,539	140,465	0.92	1.25
South Carolina	21,653	22,827	32,94?	38,750	1.05	1.18
Georgia	29,115	51,545	@	@	1.08	@
Florida	141,544	178,697	140,874	211,875	1.26	1.50
Gulf States	398,608	459,622	455,615	719,511	1.15	1.54
Alabama	26,659	30,171	22,468	25,975	1.15	1.16
Ii/lississippi	58,569	58,405	90,850	154,794	1.00	1.48
Louisiana	202,015	256,882	242, 712	415,550	1.27	1.70
Texas	111,445	114,166	109,585	145,192	1.02	1.52

(* Includes oysters shucked in regular establishments as well as by the

fisherraen themselves. X Only years for which full data are readily available. # Quantity and value exclusive of Georgia. ■*^ A large portion of the oysters sliucked in this State were probably

received from other areas. @ Data for 1950 are not available for Georgia, consequently the totals

for the South Atlantic States could no^ be computed.

Authority: Computed from various reports of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries.

-60-

T3L!: 11.

v.Rioi'3 YE.'jj.-j yr:'': 1830 TO i'.'53, r-'ci:'3r/s

Total Production

Total Production

YE'R	30,097,139	VJJIC .;!; 570,148	Y?]"R	POT'T'TiS 14,128,375	V^ll'E
1933	1901	$ 288,447
1952	32,939,451	519,304	1397	9, •149,195	217,568
1931	33,611,160	701 , 784	1891	7,505,770	303,716
1930	36,933,783	98'»,171	1890	6,444,209	260,413
1929	23,09:.', 678	799,969	188S	4,383,504	198,769
1925	9,616,361	567,785	1887	4,394,168	170,757
1920	9,052,974	742 , 9-i4	1880	1,166,667	46,850
1904	13,398,1-17	358,347

'lUthority: Various reports of tho U. S. Burerju of Fisheries.

I

4

I

-61- IIIDSX

, Pa'ze No.

Chapter '^

I Hesurvey of Oyster Bars ^'^ ~ ^'^

" Area of Maryland's "Natural" oyster bars 17

Decline in Production on "Katural" oyster bars 17

Deplet ion of "Natural" oyster bars 17 - 18

State's most productive dred,;;ing grounds now threatened .. 19

Non-productive area contributed to inefficient law en-

I q

forceraent ^^

Impartial resurvey of oyster bars advantae^eous to oystermen 19 - 20

1 1 Development of Sued r^reas '-■^ ~ '^-'

Depletion of Maryland's seed-oyster bars 21

Comparison of seed production in Maryland and Ner Jersey . 21-22

Restoration of seed producin,^J areas readily possible 22-23

Provision for adequate seed areas 23

III Disposition of Eteed Oysters 24 - 26

Sufficient acrea.^e available for both public and private

planting. Plan will aid both public and private operations 24 Potential production under intensive public and private

plant ing operations 24 - 25

Equitable distribution of seed oysters grown on public beds . 25

Care in selecting grounds for public planting 25-26

Season for taking seed oysters 26

Prohibition of out-of-state sales of seed oysters 26

IV Shell Planting ^"^ " ^^

Successes and failures in shell planting 27

Brood oysters essential for successful shell planting 27-28

Shell planting most desirable on seed areas 28 - 29

Insufficient quantity of shells available for effective

restoration ^^

V Special Conservation Finances • • 30

~ Committee's Recommendations involve no additional financial

burden on the industry or State ^° ^.o,

VI Inadequacy of Present Lease Laws in Tributary V/aters 31-33

Necessity for leasing 31

Small maximam size of area leasable in county waters 51

Present methods of holding leased areas \insatisfactory ... 52 Restrictions against the negotiation of leases by corp- orations rmd joint-stock companies 32-- 33

Added powers for conservation authorities would assist

development of private pl-mting 33

VII Added Area for Leasing 34 - 38

Change in State '"s" fund.-jnental oyster policy deem.ed

essential 34

Should M'^ryland be dependent uvjon other States for her

supply of large oysters? 34 - 35

Present leasing policy untenable 35

High productivity of le-sed arers under proper mnn-: ♦eraent. 35 - 56

Unusually barren "oyster bars" available for leasing 36-37

Results of test-dredging off Calvert S..ore, November, 1934 57

Restoriition of certain barren bars through leasing 57-38

Recommended plan to be self-supporting 38

VIII Additional Powers for Conservation Authorities 39 - 40

Inflexible laws often reduce effectiveness of Conservation

efforts 39

CK'iuter

IX

2CI SI I

-62-

Page No. Need for additional discretionary powers of Conserva- tion uuthorities S9 - 40

Leasing of the Sot^^ide Ax^as in Worcester County 41-42

Permanent OctJaw City l.iiet '^Js made oyster culture

possible near seaside areas 41

Adverse effects of inlet on certain sections 41-42

Seaside Areas for imacdiate leasing 42

Crab Resources ^-^ ~ 45

Relationship between the life cycle of the blue crab

and the Chesapeake Bay waters of Maryland & Virginia. 45 Hor riwhing practices in Virginia are affecting the

crab supply 43 - 45

HuYJ fishing operations in Maryland are affecting the

supply of crabs and crab neut 45 - 46

Exemption of Worcester County 46

Cooperation with Virginia 47

Further Studies .". 48

Statistical Appendix 49 - 60

Table 1 - Comparison of the volume of market oysters produced in Maryland vjith that for the Atlantic and Guir Stctes as a wholo, for various years from 1880 to

1932 50

Table 2 - Ap^^arent per capita consvmiption of oysters in

the United Stw.tes: By ^ecades, from 1880 to 1950.... 51 Table 3 - Comparison of the volume of the n:irket -oyster production in the various A»i'intic and Gulf St-tes,

for 1880 r.nd 1952 52

Table 4 - Trend in the volume :ind value of M'ijlwjad's total oyster production, for variovis years from 1880

to 1933, inclusive 53

Ti.ble 5 - T::c ixu_ber of tonger, scraper, dredger, and oyster-packer licenses issued in Maryland, for the

years 1916 to 1933 , inclusi ve 54

Tdble 6 - Cumparison of the value of the production of canned oysters in Ivl,.i yl.-md with that for the country

as a whole for the years 1921 to 1932, inclusive 55

Table 7 - Ti.o average annual production of market oysters

in the A"»i tic and GuLr States, classified according

to private and public beds, for the period 1929 to

1932, inclusive 56

Table 8 - Tlis vj^i^^vi of the average annual production of market oysters in the Atlantic and Guii States, class- ified according toprivate and public beds, for the

period 1929 to 1932, inclusive 57

Table 9 - Tue average value per bushel of market oysters taken from private and public beds of the Atlantic and Guii States, for the period 1929 to 1932, inclusive. 58 Table 10 - T';io iiu..^tit.- and value of oysters fresh-shucked in the ^tir^^tic -And Guii Sow^tes, together with the average value per gallon, for the years 1930 and 1931. 59 Tajle 11 - Trena in WiO volume and value of the crab production in Mar:.'l:iii.^, *or various years from 1880 to 1933, inclusive 60

c^

3 1430 D2TD0St,4 4

a 3 1 U3IZl@23<Zi@bBUUb

u«cv or uo coiitOf PUK

';<-

m

itihiii

^^I^^B^^^BM '		liipi HIP:
		iiflHpt
	]

ij t * < « . < _ ^ ^ * ^ *>

* 1:!^

^>^*^

<! «

^ 0 m

' ^* A-

f— »U 1»- f*.

. "^-^ r% V-. r,

?.« f^ /■« *« »«■ '^ V^ »^ <- ,«>,

T* I- f-. 1.. ««.

t- ?

^ <.

^ <

<} ■ « ; *

« «

<r < ^<,. V,

* 4 » i

V ip i, ♦:.

f €

t * <

t « -f

^ « - *

* .t

€ <?

^ «

^^4 «:«.:^

*.-<i.«

«. « :*

n»T? ss»t^ .»9lt:

»!? *^V _.--V,

■^% |r .. »!» it fit' )> .

, ,. . .. . «. fir ■ ^ tt,: J* ..i?*-'

?j^ " ^ >! * . -^- . ;^ H:* I*

mm'* wt Mtt' .I'C'' . i

I?, m'^ «»■» W*

■»« Mi't aoili' -j';:!^. , :■{ i<!t «i't Ml awt " >

v« V? .'^■' ■ *

■ S 'n^t *!il, 'V.*-. ,^

'1 >•:*

^: i»

^.'^•!'>:>:'f

» .v W . (2- .. ^- at -^ *^ '^ «L ^ *.■ *^ it. '»' *■ -^ ^ ^' >^ ^ ^ ''^ ^ ^- ■ ..^.• -^ .4-- ^^^ ». • ^ *.- -^ ^ ^ «r- -^ *L~ * ^ * ^ , -^

!* .. ^* r ^ ^ ti ^ 3^^ ^ 1*^:., >^- ,P-^^ J^ ^^\,-^-' V

. {* t* i

^ d ■ ^" ^ 8^ ;ii ;,

. H ^.^ ... ii ;:ife

.>■■*:

fi i^:;*.. *

..' ' i> ^'

i>,. *i*

^ i» ;.,«t

.> *

'ik^" *

>^*^'i:

.1'.. i*.

■%.^k

.11 .if-

» ^' >

>:*^#..*v*: i • t

?!'••■»'"■* si.

» ^,

» *.

> ...t

•^ ' if

». i* .' *

;» ■*'?•. 1:

»: ».

»r I*

»* ■-"«»-§ . ., «»'« ^^'i •■^,

■ I ' ■<»■* '

l« '■ i"*

'- ■- - -. ■ ,> m » ,

. ■ i^i * ip^ (1 It »,. ii^ (4 1% ■ '- '- " " "■' i^ (* JJt. " it i

(fc I* ^ i» i* * -it ;. ^ ^ i^ _ (* J* /• i»

•'• ■«- «-. ^f^ r-^ f'^ i' . 1!U T»^ =aiy- '1f^ _ 4^:- ^ ; -M

') l3 * <$ 4 * <' *^

'* ^ ^^ *■' ^ "^ *•"' -i* *■•* J^"*^ ^ '^ -^ -'^ * ^ •»*/ . *s <• If: Cr < < ♦', #5 /

' V - * "' :* -^ - * ^ * ^ ^ ^ '^ ^ <■ <<■ i. ,,

^' *^u^ ^'^ -^"^ ^'^ J^'^ ^^' ^^- ^^' -* «

« !<

4 « <P -i

^%***<

<■- .. tt

f I « «

c:c

« _. f «:

f I

« 0

*5 .«

*^# ^

c ^f

f #

,%•

« ' f

:€:.r .

« ..*

: : c < _., ^^.

f ■« *

f :*

4 . <

€ €

4 '4: t x':a

<^ _f :f

f €

« €

< : ^ : c

* .1

<. '' r

I _ * <

r, r."

C J€

« # 'C

" " ■'^*^**^^^J^'I'^J^7^'*^J^I^-.^*^*/•- «i^ «i « <e 4^ ^^ ^^ ■% '^i « <i ■* *i * n •»

#; n

dT' ;? - .-

■i.* if